I see the policy itself largely as a no-op. I have no objection for it going to
the board,
nor do I have any significant support for it to do so.
Owen
> On May 12, 2016, at 18:53 , David Farmer wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Even though the last call period formally ended May 9th, I try my best
> to c
> On May 12, 2016, at 14:34 , Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>
> From: "Owen DeLong" mailto:o...@delong.com>>
>> Milton,
>>
>> Despite your continued assertion of this position, no, there are a number of
>> us who believe that needs assessment remains valid in the absence of a free
>> pool as a
Total of 39 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 13 00:53:03 EDT 2016
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
17.95% |7 | 23.31% | 175629 | jschil...@google.com
12.82% |5 | 12.72% |95851 | jcur...@arin.
Jason,
Even though the last call period formally ended May 9th, I try my best
to consider all feedback received for a policy even following the
formal last call deadline, and while I can't speak for directly for
other AC members, I believe most of them do the same. However, when
feedback comes in
I support the policy as written.
I also agree with staff suggestions to remove additional outdated language, but
history suggests that we can only get a few words removed with each policy
proposal.
I would also support removal of all needs assessment language for the transfer
cases.
Matthew Ka
Matthew, Steven, Owen, and Milton,
Since, ARIN-2015-3 is in last call, it would also be helpful if you
could comment more directly on the specific merits of or issues with
this policy, and take discussion of other more generic issues to
another thread. Furthermore, since you commented on the last
Thank you John.
I reiterate my last post. The criterion is obsolete and this recommended draft
policy should proceed through PDP.
> On May 12, 2016, at 6:37 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
>> On May 12, 2016, at 5:56 PM, David Huberman wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> 1) how many 8.3 transfers have been
On May 12, 2016, at 5:56 PM, David Huberman
mailto:dav...@panix.com>> wrote:
John,
1) how many 8.3 transfers have been approved as of 30 April 2016?
Do you mean transfers since IPv4 transfer policy inception, or simply in 2015?
(They are all listed here:
https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statist
I agree with Matthew & Milton. I’m seeing large legacy holders sell off parts
of their blocks small chunks at a time. That is the result of supply and demand
and in this case the exhaustion has led to demand from organizations that hold
Legacy blocks larger than they need. This is how the mark
John,
1) how many 8.3 transfers have been approved as of 30 April 2016?
2) of those, how many were reviewed and verified with the explicit requirement
that 25% of the requested space to be transferred-in would be used immediately?
David
> On May 12, 2016, at 4:11 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
>>
Folks -
Please keep the discussion focused on the merits of the various policy
positions,
*rather than characterizations of the participants themselves)
Thanks,
/John
On May 12, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Matthew Kaufman
mailto:matt...@matthew.at>> wrote:
From: "Owen DeLong" mailto:o...@delong
From: "Owen DeLong"
Milton,
Despite your continued assertion of this position, no, there are a
number of us who believe that needs assessment remains valid in the
absence of a free pool as a mechanism to ensure that resources are not
going to organizations without need.
You and others may
Milton,
Despite your continued assertion of this position, no, there are a number of us
who believe that needs assessment remains valid in the absence of a free pool
as a mechanism to ensure that resources are not going to organizations without
need.
While it is clear you do not perceive this
On May 12, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Jason Schiller
mailto:jschil...@google.com>> wrote:
I am surprised that staff would not apply the 30 day need (albeit extended to
60 day need) for end-sites requesting a transfer.
My understanding is that 8.3 references "demonstrating need" "under current
policies"
Jason
It seems that the criteria you apply to demonstrated need presumes the
existence of a free pool that must be “conserved” through traditional needs
assessment methods. It overlooks the fact that going forward, we will be
dealing exclusively with transfers. In other words, if companies overe
On May 12, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>
> I am surprised that staff would not apply the 30 day need (albeit extended to
> 60 day need) for end-sites requesting a transfer.
>
> My understanding is that 8.3 references "demonstrating need" "under current
> policies" albeit extended t
I am surprised that staff would not apply the 30 day need (albeit extended
to 60 day need) for end-sites requesting a transfer.
My understanding is that 8.3 references "demonstrating need" "under current
policies" albeit extended to 24 months (double an ARIN assignment).
Current policy 4.3.3 defi
On 19 April 2016 the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following
Recommended Draft Policies:
ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use
ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion
of v4 Pool
These new policies will be implemented no later than 31 July 2016.
This is in acco
18 matches
Mail list logo
