Hi Alyssa, On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Alyssa Moore wrote:
Right - this is what I was trying to get at with my first response. The next disbursement would fulfill the requests of all of those 26 organizations who would be reinstated if this policy passed, plus everyone else presently on the waiting list. This was the information provided to the Advisory Council in the October and November meetings. John Curran or Sweeting can confirm whether this remains true.
Thank you. What inventory would remain after such an action? What is the present and expected "burn rate" of said inventory from new requests to the wait list, notwithstanding the petition at hand? It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the community as a whole if that inventory lasts as long as possible, which appears to be the intent of the existing policy; rationing of addresses to the waitlist by limiting requests by block size. If these 26 orgs were to get their allocations as requested, how much "runway" is taken away, at present and expected "burn rate?"
Hypothetical example for clarity: there are presently 10K addresses, being allocated at 100/month(burn rate), giving us 100 months of normal, uninterrupted operation(runway). 5K addresses are requested by legacy waitlisters. this cuts runway in half. my concern speaks more to the longevity of the mechanism than effects on those presently participating.
Scott
I believe a few of the other 26 affected orgs have chimed in during the discussion of this proposal. On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:59 AM <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Alyssa, On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Alyssa Moore wrote: > Ah, of course! My apologies. The answer to that is: 26 organizations would > be reinstated if this policy went through. Thank you. Have we heard from the other 25? If all of these were fulfilled, what percentage of existing inventory would be consumed. All of it? It seems reasonable to me that the same kinds of considerations apply in this case as "2 packages of toilet paper per customer" when the pandemic hit. This feeling becomes particularly acute when considering both that the waitlist address pool was only replenished after the recovery of addresses from those who acquired them fraudulently, and that precedent to that, the waitlist mechanism suffered from no available inventory. I will, however, reserve voicing an opinion until I fully understand the effects of the outcome on the available address pool, in both scenarios. Thanks, Scott > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:32 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alyssa, > > Good to speak with you. Perhaps I mispoke... how many > organizations were > removed from the waitlist and are still seeking larger > allocations? If > my understanding of the original issue appears unclear, please > enlighten > me! > > I am trying to determine if orgs other than the petitioner were > effected; if so, how many, and what effect that would have on > ARIN's > related inventory of addresses allocatable via the waitlist (not > including > 4.10s, etc.). > > Thanks, > Scott > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Alyssa Moore wrote: > > > Hi Scott, > > > > Anita Nikolich (AC member) answered this on Dec 16: > > > > >Please note (and you can refer to the Nov AC minutes) > that organizations > > that are currently on the waitlist won’t be affected, because > the next > > disbursement of v4 would fulfill all the exempted orgs as well > as the ones > > remaining on the list. The overall impact to the current > waitlist is > > non-existent from these requests. > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:21 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > In these deliberations, I think it would be useful to > know how > > many actual > > ARIN Member Organizations would be effected. I am not > talking > > about > > downstream customers, affiliates, or the like, but only > resource > > holders > > on the actual waitlist. Does John Sweeting have any > metrics as > > to this? > > Further, if all effected organizations were to receive > the > > allocations > > they are seeking, what percentage of the available > address > > inventory would > > be immediately exhausted? > > > > Thanks, > > Scott > > > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, John Curran wrote: > > > > > On 14 Jan 2021, at 11:00 AM, Michael B. Williams > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > How does ARIN analyze the response from this? Is > there > > weight > > > given only to ARIN member organizations or any > > organization? If > > > anyone is given consideration, what is to stop > people > > from > > > lobbying individuals and other organizations to > send an > > email to > > > support their agenda? For example, I could very > easily > > find 500 > > > people to respond to this email saying they do > not > > support the > > > policy. If I were a malicious actor trying to > influence > > policy > > > discussion and were to offer some sort of > incentive for > > those to > > > reply I could easily have thousands of > organizations > > supporting > > > this policy one way or another. > > > > > > My feelings would be the majority of the weight should > be > > given to > > > ARIN member organizations voices as part of the > tallying > > process. If > > > that is the case, perhaps we should ask those > organizations to > > include > > > their ARIN org id? > > > > > > > > > Michael - > > > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process specifies the > petition > > appeal process, > > > and the sole criteria for a successful petition is > expressions > > of support > > > from at least 25 different people from 25 different > > organizations. > > > > > > Note that a successful petition simply means that the > policy – > > without any > > > recommendation of adoption from the ARIN Advisory > Council – > > will be sent to > > > the ARIN Board of Trustees for their consideration of > possible > > adoption. > > > Also note that for the purpose of determining > petition > > success, ARIN staff > > > will only be counting those messages which clearly > indicate > > support for the > > > petition and include both the submitters name and > their > > organization. > > > > > > The ARIN Board is on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing > List, and > > will see any > > > discussion of substantial merits or concerns with the > policy. > > Each trustee > > > is free to weight such input as they see fit, but at > this > > point it is not a > > > numerical question – as we are not seeking a poll of > support > > or opposition > > > to the policy – but rather simply whether at least 25 > > organizations feel > > > (despite the ARIN AC’s decision not to recommend) that > policy > > warrants > > > consideration by the ARIN Board of Trustees. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > /John > > > > > > John Curran > > > President and CEO > > > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > 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.
