Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, David Farmer wrote: Personally, I'd like to remove that clause all together, I do not see where it is reasonable to re-justify your resources just because of a business reorganization. It should be sufficient to submit proper legal documentation and demonstrate that the

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, David Farmer wrote: > What if the transfer part was made explicitly voluntary as well? Would that > solve your worry? > > Personally, I'd like to remove that clause all together, I do not see where > it is reasonable to re-justify your resources

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 7, 2016, at 11:45, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, David Farmer wrote: >> What if the transfer part was made explicitly voluntary as well? Would that >> solve your worry? >> >> Personally, I'd like to

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

Morning Bill, One item that may help clarify intent is an editorial change that the AC requested in April, and was adopted by the BoT at their May 2016 meeting. https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/20160520/exhibit_d.pdf But as you and David suggested, more work may be required in this area. Hope

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:53 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:35 PM, David R Huberman wrote: > >> "ARIN will proceed with processing transfer requests even if the > >> number resources of the combined organizations EXCEED WHAT CAN BE > >>

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

Bill, The intent of this policy text was that an organization receiving a sparsely used /16 would transfer the unused bits to other organization(s) that could use them. In your case, if you transferred all the /24s that are currently unused (without any renumbering), would the blocks you're