Given how easily one can stand up a not-for-profit in AZ for an incredibly
small amount of money, I think David is absolutely correct here.
Owen
> On Nov 14, 2022, at 15:35, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>
> Conceptually, as an abstract idea, I have no problem with restricting the
>
That is precisely one of the main points: to disincentivize
organizations from joining the waitlist in order to sell for a profit later.
If an organization acquires space from the waitlist no longer needs it
it should not be able to sell the space given that space was already
'acquired' in a
Re: Preventing waitlist recipients from transferring their space
indefinitely (instead of only a five-year lockout)
The point of this change seems to be to disincentivize organizations from
joining the waitlist simply to acquire space they can later sell for a
profit.
That makes sense. But it
Alison,
As I stated at the ARIN50 meeting, in light of the report John Sweeting gave
(https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/materials/1020_policyimplementation.pdf)
I would be in favor of reducing the minimum allocation size to a /24. I am not
necessarily in favor of lowering the
the current policy should be retained as it is.
Orin Roberts
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: November 14, 2022 7:08 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [EXT]Re: [arin-ppml] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback
Requested
Good question David, but I don't think
Good question David, but I don't think that is too hard.
If an organization (a legal entity) has any IPv4 blocks assigned to it,
regardless of the usage it would not be eligible already and that
eliminates the vast majority of cases which sounds good. Any
common-traditional new company that
Yes, but think about the streamlining of section 4
All returned addresses go back the the waiting list.
The waiting list gives one /24 to each member in need who has no resources.
I could rewrite that section in 5 lines. ;-)
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 18:53:30 -0500 Martin Hannigan
Feels like an artificial market liquidity constraint. Antitrust review? How
do we gauge fairness to small operators as well as those with big capital?
Far more complicated than it appears. IYKYK.
Warm regards,
-M<
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 6:36 PM David Farmer via ARIN-PPML <
Hi David,
To prevent a recurrence of the RIPE new-entrants-pool fiasco, I think a
demonstration of need will suffice to prevent gaming.
And changing from a /22 to a /24 reduces the incentive to game by 75%.
But it would be interesting to hear other ideas.
Regards,
Mike
On Mon,
Conceptually, as an abstract idea, I have no problem with restricting the
waiting list to newcomers only. However, the implementation of such a
restriction could prove problematic; What is a true newcomer? How do we
prevent gaming of this restriction?
The current 60-month restriction on transfers
"A change in the waiting-list rules that would be certainly be
welcome is restrict it only to newcomers that have no IPv4 space
at all."
I would support this change as well.
Why not a waiting-list that provides a max /24 to any member with demonstrated
need who has not received
Then need to detail and analyze what sound unreasonable in changing 5
years period to indefinite.
Reducing the request size to anything smaller than an /22 is giving a
such small and useless space that will probably make no difference to
whoever receives it. A /22 is already a very small
"I don't support any changes to the transfer provisions of the waiting list.
The current transfer provisions seem reasonable to me.
However, if I were going to support any changes to the waiting list, I would
support reducing the request size from /22 to /24."
+1
Regards,
Mike
I reviewed the Policy Implementation and Experience Report presented at
ARIN 50;
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/materials/1020_policyimplementation.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RruDSG32D0M=PL726kQ53RX6i-x05T2JLckh59gWtLs1TR=5569s
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 1:42 PM WOOD Alison * DAS
wrote:
> The current wait list criteria is:
>
> Must have a /20 or less in total IPv4 holdings.
> May request up to a /22.
> Removed from list if IPv4 received via 8.3/8.4 transfer.
> Received ip space is eligible for needs-based transfer after
Initially the idea sounds good in order to prevent any organization to
sit in the waiting list with the intention to simply earn money with the
transfer of the well waited space that surely should not be for that
intention.
Fernando
On 14/11/2022 18:42, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:
Hello!
The
Please remove all @sageisland.com emails addresses from this distribution list.
Thank you.
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of WOOD Alison * DAS
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:53 PM
To: Josh Meyers
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback Requested
That would fall under the M exclusion.
I support this idea and look forward to a policy proposal.
Owen
> On Nov 14, 2022, at 13:49, Josh Meyers wrote:
>
> What happens if a company is on waitlist, has IP space assigned and at some
> point in future is acquired, while still using the space?
Sorry missed the M & A part. Going back to my corner
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 14, 2022, at 4:42 PM, WOOD Alison * DAS
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello!
>
> The Policy Experience Report Working Group has been working on the Policy
> Experience Report from ARIN 50. I would appreciate your
.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback Requested
What happens if a company is on waitlist, has IP space assigned and at some
point in future is acquired, while still using the space? Your recommendation
seems to be that those wouldn’t be able to be transfe
What happens if a company is on waitlist, has IP space assigned and at some
point in future is acquired, while still using the space? Your recommendation
seems to be that those wouldn’t be able to be transferred and would have to be
given back??
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 14, 2022, at 4:42
Hello!
The Policy Experience Report Working Group has been working on the Policy
Experience Report from ARIN 50. I would appreciate your feedback on the
following issue regarding transferring waitlist space.
The current wait list criteria is:
* Must have a /20 or less in total IPv4
22 matches
Mail list logo
