Hi all, Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed all of the comments. There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy, and 5 against.
Many of these comments express support for removing the restriction on total holdings for a grandfathered organization, because this was not a restriction when they were originally placed on the list. As such, the amended proposal would look like this: ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position (STRIKE THIS: if their total holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less.) The maximum size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22. All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the waiting list. Thoughts? -Anita Nikolich On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > On behalf of my organization, I would also like to voice support for this > policy. As much as I find some arguments against the policy compelling, > namely that nobody is guaranteed to receive any space within any kind of > time frame when using the waiting list, I think it’s pretty clear to the > community that an error was made in moving the target out from underneath > companies who had already been patiently waiting on the list in accordance > with the requirements at the time they were added. > > > > As far as implementation details, I absolutely believe that two of the > most important measures to prevent fraud were the introduction of the /22 > limit and the 60 month waiting period to transfer wait list issued space. > Although we may have erred in retroactively removing orgs based on the new > /20 limit for total space held, I think that the grandfathered orgs should > be subject to the same treatment as the orgs who remained on the list after > 2019-16 was implemented. Otherwise, I believe we would once again be > creating a situation of unequal treatment for the orgs who had to reduce > their request size to a /22 after the implementation of 2019-16, and were > subject to the new 60 month waiting period upon issuance. > > > > With regards to the proposed /18 limit, I do find that there is little to > support this arbitrary boundary when the original waitlist policy specified > no such condition. Since we are remedying a one time error, I think that we > shouldn’t be too particular about which of the aggrieved parties are > allowed to make use of that remedy. Although I personally believe that most > organizations holding greater than a /18 could probably afford to obtain > space in other ways, I think the duty of ARIN to be fair and impartial > requires us to take a bit broader view. Asking an organization to take a > smaller allocation, or wait longer to transfer allocated space, seems to me > to be a much less onerous retroactive application of new policy than > drawing any boundary which results in complete ineligibility for some. > > > > Isaiah Olson > > Olson Tech, LLC > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
