[mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Richard J. Letts
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 11:59 AM
To: ARIN <i...@arin.net>; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5:
Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
Following Owen's oppo
-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of ARIN
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:17 PM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5:
> Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer
I’ve now received both on and off-list requests to clarify my sustained
opposition to 2016-5.
All of the reasons stated in my original email on this subject remain:
> I am opposed to this policy proposal.
>
> Given that we are now in a world where the only way to obtain IPv4 space is
>
Owen,
It would be helpful to clarify why you feel one is a superior alternative
to another beyond just stating so.
Unless my PPML searches are incorrect, the numbers don't support your
assertion that 2016-3 has a higher level of community support.
2016-3 had four people post to PPML with one in
Speaking strictly for myself and not in my role as a member of the AC..
I remain strongly opposed to this proposal. While it is further along in the
process, I believe that 2016-3 represents a vastly superior alternative with a
higher level of community support.
Speaking as a member of the AC,
