This seems like a solid plan.
-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:39 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 182, Issue 4
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations
Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 (A N)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering ofOrganizations
Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
(=?utf-8?B?SGF5ZWUgQm9raGFyaQ==?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:31:19 +0000
From: A N <[email protected]>
To: Isaiah Olson <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
Message-ID:
<CAJYzV9J0MN+4T=rlhjqjva67stvfdewe_jutmb0bfaiml+a...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200818/c0789694/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:39:25 -0400
From: "=?utf-8?B?SGF5ZWUgQm9raGFyaQ==?=" <[email protected]>
To: "=?utf-8?B?QSBO?=" <[email protected]>,
"=?utf-8?B?SXNhaWFoIE9sc29u?=" <[email protected]>
Cc: "=?utf-8?B?YXJpbi1wcG1sQGFyaW4ubmV0?=" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering
ofOrganizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of
ARIN-2019-16
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Seems like a plan,
Go for it.
Regards
Hayee Bokhari
514-341-1579 Ex 212
800-427-6012 Ex 212
[email protected]
http://www.cronomagic.com
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.
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.
2020-08-1811:39:03
Notice
This communication is intended to be received only by the individual[s] or
entity[s] to whom or to which it is addressed, and contains information
which is confidential, privileged and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized
use, copying, review or disclosure is prohibited. Please notify the sender
immediately if you have received this communication in error [by calling
collect, if necessary] so that we can arrange for its return at our expense.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated assistance and cooperation.
Cette communication est destin?e uniquement ? la personne ou ? la personne
morale ? qui elle est adress?e. Elle contient de l'information
confidentielle, prot?g?e par le secret professionnel et sujette ? des droits
d'auteurs. Toute utilisation, reproduction, consultation ou divulgation non
autoris?es sont interdites. Nous vous prions d'aviser imm?diatement
l'exp?diteur si vous avez re?u cette communication par erreur (en appelant ?
frais vir?s, si n?cessaire), afin que nous puissions prendre des
dispositions pour en assurer le renvoi ? nos frais. Nous vous remercions ?
l'avance de votre coop?ration.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200818/f7c6ad21/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
------------------------------
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 182, Issue 4
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
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.
