Member of the AC hat on (though not speaking on behalf of the AC):
If this proposal gains traction and 2014-13 is adopted, the AC and the
community can make the necessary adjustments to it in light of 2014-13 if
2014-13 is adopted.
Changing 2014-13 so substantially at this time would only
To clarify:
Details here: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_13.html
2014-13 is a Recommended Draft Policy which was brought for Adoption Discussion
at the PPC at NANOG Seattle.
The AC put it to Last Call in their June meeting and that last call ended two
days ago on July 15th.
The
On 14-07-17 03:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Do you have suggestions on how this issue could be addressed without making it
overly difficult to qualify for address space in general?
No, I am putting thought into it, but no magic bullets yet.. just think
this isn't the one..
With
I think it will have exactly the opposite effect, actually. I think it
lowers the barrier for smaller entities and new entrants while keeping
roughly the same effective requirements for larger incumbents.
Maybe if you can show how the barriers are reduced for smaller entities
and new
I agree.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote:
Others have noted we are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with
these IPv4 policy issues.
Maybe it is time to metaphorically sweep those chairs into the sea so we can
move on.
Perhaps that is an interesting
Point is that the current proposal which just concluded last call definitely
gets it better than the current circumstance. If the community decides to
develop your proposal, we can always add the pieces needed to integrate it.
In short, we can get 2014-13 right and right now, and we can, if
On Jul 17, 2014, at 08:35 , Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote:
I think it will have exactly the opposite effect, actually. I think it
lowers the barrier for smaller entities and new entrants while keeping
roughly the same effective requirements for larger incumbents.
Maybe if you can
On Jul 17, 2014, at 09:28 , Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote:
Others have noted we are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with
these IPv4 policy issues.
Maybe it is time to metaphorically sweep
