; From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller
> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:54 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com <mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com>>
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <a
t;
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> Schiller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:54 PM
> *To:* Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml]
L List <arin-ppml@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited - anti-abuse clause
We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the discussion...
I'd like to quickly outline the options, and see if we can get more people to
weigh in and either note they object to
Maybe fairness was not the word I was looking for...
I don't mind large organizations using a more difficult process or
requiring greater proof, as was the case with the "less simplified
provisions of the existing policy" wrt the ISP slow start policy of the
ARIN pool. But slow start as it is
Not a new voice, but C for me please. It avoids a bunch of corner cases that A
introduces, but is far simpler and easier for everyone to understand than B. It
also is more consistent with the original idea of a /16 limit, which gets us
the simplification benefit for the vast majority of
Owen,
After reading your mail, I noticed I artificially shortened the text for
C. It should have been what you described as your preferred choice.
Re-asking the question for clarity (and hopes of getting new voices).
We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the
discussion...
Respectfully I reject your premise on the fairness.
Neither A, nor C prevent large organizations from getting more, they merely
require that they use other less simplified provisions of the existing policy.
I think what I support is sort of a hybrid between A and C in that I believe
you should
I support B.
It puts added work on those who need more than a /16, or have a growth rate
more than doubling every half yeah, but does not prevent organizations who
need IP addresses from getting them.
I oppose A and C as they are unfair,
A.
- unfairly penalizes large organizations that need
We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the
discussion...
I'd like to quickly outline the options, and see if we can get more people
to weigh in and either note they object to one or more options, are
ambivalent to one or more options, or support one or more options (with
some
