On 3/20/14, 15:01 , Heather Schiller wrote:
As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community
feedback on the proposed text.
Aside from the general support/against.. some things to consider:
Do you concur with or have any comment on the problem statement?
The problem statement conflates two issues. I concur with part of the
problem statement, there is a conflict between this policy and the RSA.
The second issue basically says that it is bad policy to require a
review of the utilization of M&A Transferred resources. I must admit
that I would prefer that legitimate M&A transfers not have to go through
this process. However, I cannot support removal of this clause without
some other way to ensure that people don't use creative contracting to
make what should be a 8.3 transfer look like a 8.2 transfer.
If you support the problem statement, do you support removing section
8.2 as the correct path for remediating this conflict? Do you have
other suggestions for how to handle this?
I'm not fundamentally opposed to removing the paragraph in its entirety,
if my issue above can be resolved. However, I suggest there is a less
drastic solution to resolving the actual conflict between this policy
and the RSA.
Technically, there is only one word in the paragraph in question that is
fundamentally in conflict with the RSA, that is "reclaim". Also, with
the suspension of sections 4.6 and 4.7 and ARIN-2014-10, I'd suggest
that "aggregate" will essentially become a NO-OP.
So, I fully support removing the words "reclaim" and "aggregate" from
the paragraph, and slightly adjusting the wording so makes sense after
their removal;
In the event that number resources of the combined organizations
are no longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes
aware of the transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise,
ARIN will work with the resource holder(s) to return or transfer
resources as needed to restore compliance via the processes outlined
in current ARIN policy.
The conflict between this policy and the RSA is then resolved, and the
likely non-operative option is removed.
If someone has useful suggestions for how to ensure that 8.2 doesn't
become a loop-hole for 8.3 if this paragraph is removed, I'd be willing
to consider its complete removal.
Thanks.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
