I don't think anyone is blaming the organizations that stood in the
queue for doing anything wrong for "loosing" the resources that could
have been assigned to them. They didn't loose because they never ended
up having it. As most have been saying meeting all requirements at the
time and standing in line was never a guarantee the resources would be
allocated.
Fact is that things changed and they changed not to harm these
organization but due to a natural thing, partially related to IPv4
exhaustion which has no solution inside the IPv4 world. Policy might
change in the future again and may impact other organizations at that
point in time.
I think there it no much point to find who to blame in this context,
otherwise we could also ask if those that in end of 2020 keep refusing
to deploy IPv6 are creating growing issues for those who have done it
already or not.
This proposal seems to have been custom made for very specific case and
not to answer the needs of majority of members, and as such I oppose it
as well.
Regards
Fernando
On 02/11/2020 11:16, [email protected] wrote:
But is not the real unfairness issue being able to receive more space
from the list than those that apply now?
That is the issue I have a problem with. Along with the fact that
without free pools, there is little to give out in the first place.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 2 Nov 2020, Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML wrote:
It's the time spent on the list. I waited 11 months on the list
before getting my allocation. Most of the organizations affected are
likely to have spent
significant time on the list (unfortunately I do not have the exact
data on time spent waiting for affected orgs). Spending time
waiting, then get put to
the back of the line so to speak and have to do it again, that's the
issue. That was time wasted that could've been spent making other
arrangements, hence
they were penalized.
Jason
Brandt
Senior Systems Engineer
Pearl Companies
|
1200 E Glen Ave
Peoria Heights
,
IL
61616
P:
309.679.0184
F:
309.688.5444
E:
[email protected]
www.pearlcompanies.com | Insurance ‑ Technology ‑ Automotive
PEARL COMPANIES CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including
attachments, is for exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain
proprietary,
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, or distribution or the
taking of any action in
reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
delete this
communication and destroy all copies [v1.0.002].
From: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 07:50
To: Brandt, Jason <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is
safe.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML
<[email protected]> wrote:
I find it hard to understand how you can believe that this is
"special benefits".
Grandfathering is a common technique that addresses inequities
changes create. Governments do it and business does it. To some
extent, the could be called
"special benefits". However, the context of that is different, some
feel the benefits create an inequity rather than resolve one.
Organizations went through the approved process to get on the
wait list to *possibly* be assigned an address block. The policy on
allocations
was changed, however the organizations did everything by the
book per previous policy. The organization is now told that they have
to go through
the process again and wait longer. This has nothing to do with
potential space allocation. I am all for limiting the allocation
amount in the
future. However, to penalize an organization that has followed
the process to this point is unfair. This also is no guarantee that
these
organizations will receive an allocation. More likely, they'll
continue to wait.
This draft policy is simply to not penalize organizations that
went through the proper process of what was approved policy at the
time. A
similar scenario would be arresting someone who has broken a
law, prior to the offense becoming law.
The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that
grandfathering addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the
list and getting nothing?
There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as far
as I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself
requires any
special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting minutes
correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with much
at all.
I continue to support this policy, not because I agree that
larger requests should be granted, but because the organizations had
followed the
approved process and policies.
I'm not entirely certain where I sit on this. So far I haven't seen
strong arguments one way or the other.
Fair enough. Thank you.
Warm regards,
-M<
_______________________________________________
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.
