Hi Scott, Yes, indeed all is well and hope the same for you.
That is a hard question since ARIN receives differing amounts of address space back every month through revocations (primarily for non-payment) and voluntary returns. Another wild card is the huge amount of space that is not under agreement and therefore not susceptible to revocation for non-payment but may be reclaimed due to various scenarios such as fraudulent or criminal activity. There is really no way to predict a timeline for complete exhaustion so the best way to look at this is that if all the if's became true and ARIN issued the each of the 24 possibly eligible organizations a /22 that would take 96 /24's out of that unknown pool, which is equivalent to a /18 and a /19. Sorry but that is really the best we can do without a crystal ball. Thanks, John S. On 1/14/21, 1:32 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi John, I hope all is well with you! > So Alyssa’s answer are correct or rather were. ARIN, in fact, fulfilled all > requests that were on the waitlist during the 4th Qtr distribution > (completed first week of January). Currently there are 25 organizations > approved and added to the waitlist since that time. So basically, if the > policy being petitioned was successful and if the policy was then ratified > by the Board, and if all 24 of the organizations that could meet the terms > of the policy then they would receive their distribution prior to those 25 > organizations currently on the waitlist. Based on projected inventory for > the 1st quarter distribution to be held in late March, all current > organizations on the waitlist today would be unaffected. Ack, and thanks for the response. Per my most recent followup, how would the present matter effect the time until exhaustion, at present rate of allocation, if all removed from the waitlist got the requested blocks? Scott > > > > I realize there are a lot of “if’s” in there but at this time there is no > way know what exactly will be the outcome. In saying that it is clear that > no one on the waitlist today would be negatively affected. > > > > Please let us know if you have any other questions. > > > > Thanks, > > John S. > > > > > > From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> on behalf of Alyssa Moore > <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:06 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2 > > > > 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. > > > > 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.
