It looks like it is obvious, we need a new proposal that will
accommodate both sides of this devide, enabling accurate record keeping,
without language that encourages a positioning 'policy' that stake
holders are uncomfortable with.
On 15-08-20 04:35 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 8/20/2015
On 8/20/2015 1:04 PM, Brian Jones wrote:
I agree with this simplified requirement but would even be willing to
accept a 50% within 12 months and 75% in 24 months requirement. Two
years is a long time to tie up valuable resources that are not being
used. IMHO
I do not understand this
I agree with David here. I do believe there should be a requirement that any
new allocations must keep the allocation x amount of time before it can
transferred. Possibly 12 months+ which would thereby kill most ideas to sell
for profit.
-Kevin
On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:05 PM, David Huberman
On 8/20/2015 2:05 PM, David Huberman wrote:
Hi Bill,
Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers
where ARIN no
longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud when the
attestation
turns out to be untrue.
So I get what you're saying. And you're right.
On 8/20/2015 4:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
This is one of those areas where people of good conscience can disagree.
I absolutely feel it is ARINs job as a steward of resources held in
trust for the community
to exercise due diligence in the issuance of those resources and to
revoke them when
Dear Colleagues,
It's been almost two months since ARIN 2015-7 was submitted. Anyone have
thoughts on Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers?
The AC would love your input.
Draft policy text follows:
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7
Simplified requirements for demonstrated
