I keep looking at these discussions and thinking how some as
nonconformist even about stuff there is no much what to do. There is
simply no IP address left and it is not possible to make up IP address
out of thin air.
Waiting list takes long because, guess what ... there is no IP space to
supply all justified needs.
And I wonder what is the logic of proposing finish with the waiting
list. Perhaps with this not existing anymore there would be less
nonconformity, although would do nothing for addresses that keep being
recovered and need to keep being distributed in the most fair way.
Guess what is the most fair way to do that ? The waiting list !
/22 is already nothing for a new comers to do something in their
beginning, so they need to have a chance to do something minimal and
wheever they grow they can go to market and keep going, but reducing the
maximum allocation to a /23 would not help in any way to make the
waiting list fairer and will make the life of newcomers who a able to
get some tiny space from it more difficult.
Therefore abandon this proposal.
Fernando
On 22/12/2024 17:26, Denis Motova wrote:
Good Evening Everyone!
Amazing how much back and forth we’re having on this policy,
absolutely brilliant! Let’s keep it up. My two cents on the matter is
as follows:
1. There is a waiting list and any changes should include a provision
that protects existing waiting list members.
2. I believe that only a /23 minimum would be acceptable, as a /24 is
simply too small for any meaningful networks.
However, my actual thought process is on this, why change something
that works already? Yes, we have a wait time that is slightly large,
but ok…
Why should everything be instant? I believe that we should be looking
for meaningful changes not changes to address speed, and instant
gratification.
Just my two cents on the matter.
Denis
On 21 Dec 2024, at 1:06 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:10 PM Gerry E.. George
<[email protected]> wrote:
We are now seeing 4 feasible options for this Draft Policy:
1. Consider revised policy as written (with proposed retroactive
protections - still 3+-year lag and wait times);
2. Consider policy without any retroactive protections (reduction in
wait times by ⅔s);
3. Do away with the Waitlist completely (new policy would be required);
4. Abandon the policy (essentially, do nothing, no changes to
current operations)
One thing I'd like to point out:
Options 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive with option 1.
We can adopt option 1 and continue discussing modification to requests
currently in the queue. If those discussions prove fruitless, adopting
option 1 will still leave us with a solution 3 years out.
We can adopt option 1 and continue discussing elimination of the
waitlist. Even if we do not find a better alternative to the waitlist,
it will at least become more functional in 3 years time.
Only option 4 conflicts with option 1, leaving us with zero progress
on the problem that the waitlist is just too darn long.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
[email protected]
https://bill.herrin.us/
_______________________________________________
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.
<http://www.brcrude.com>
Denis Motova
B-Rock Crude Partners LLC
[email protected]
1684 Medina Road #118
Medina, OH 44256
brcrude.com <http://www.brcrude.com>
DISCLAIMER: This electronic transmission and/or attached document(s)
have not been verified or authenticated and are not to be considered a
solicitation for any purpose in any form or content, nor an offer to
sell and/or buy securities and or properties. Merely describing the
details of an existing private transaction does not constitute an
offer or solicitation of any kind and, if presented, is done so as a
request for information. Upon receipt of these documents you, as the
recipient(s), hereby acknowledge this warning and disclaimer. It is
important that you do your due diligence on any and all commodity
offers as we do not warrant any offers that we forward from any other
source. We make all attempts to verify information and documents as
much as possible but we can't guarantee authenticity.
This email and its attachments may contain information that is
privileged or confidential or legally exempt from disclosure,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction by anyone other than the
intended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, please
immediately notify us and permanently delete the original and any
copies thereof.
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of
1986, Codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1367, 2510-2521, 2701-2710, 3121-3126.
See http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act 15 USC, Subchapter I, Sec. 6801-6809. This email and the attached
related documents are never to be considered a solicitation for any
purpose in any form or content.
_______________________________________________
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 [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.
