Thanks for clarifying that, Chris. I support this draft policy proposal: forcing applicants to wait to get into line for free space will at least slow down any attempts to make money off the free pool via the waiting list.
Scott > On Mar 3, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Chris Woodfield <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tom - responses inline. > > One additional point - the current policy places a limit on how often an > organization can receive resources from the waiting list. This draft changes > the hold-down timer so that it now applies to *applications* for new > allocations under the waiting list policy, not the receipt of resources from > it. > >> On Mar 3, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Tom Fantacone <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Chris, >> >> The "clarification" part of your proposal seems to be a no brainer (the >> waiting period is meant to apply to allocations only under section 4). I >> assume ARIN staff is already interpreting it this way since that was the >> intent of the section. So I wouldn't sever it unless the full policy >> doesn't gain support in which case we could revisit just inserting the >> clarification part. >> > > That assumption is my understanding as well. > >> Regarding this: >> "- Disallows organizations that have transferred space to other parties >> within the past 12 months from applying for additional IPv4 space under NRPM >> Section 4. " >> >> I want to make sure I understand it correctly. If you transfer out space >> via 8.2/8.3/8.4, does this restriction mean you just can't receive space via >> the waiting list for 12 months, or via any mechanism (waiting list/transfer) >> for 12 months? I think it means from the waiting list only, but want to be >> sure. >> > > That is correct - note the phrase “...under this section...” in the proposal > text. > > Thanks, > > -Chris > > >> Tom >> >> >> >> ---- On Sat, 02 Mar 2019 13:48:01 -0500 Chris Woodfield >> <[email protected]> wrote ---- >> >> Speaking as the policy author, I’ll make two points: >> >> 1. I’m aware that given the other discussions around waiting list policy >> that are ongoing, this proposal may well be rendered moot by future policy >> changes. I still believe that this is worth pursuing as there’s a current >> need for clarification and increased disincentives for bad behavior today. >> 2. I’m deliberately killing two not-terribly-related birds with one stone >> with this proposal, based on the fact that the two issues noted from the PER >> can be addressed by adding language to the same NRPM text. Happy to consider >> severing them if the community prefers. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Chris >> >>> On Mar 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> I think it is time to start the ball on the other policies. >>> >>> +1 on this. It seems focused on those gathering resources to resell. >>> >>> Albert Erdmann >>> Network Administrator >>> Paradise On Line Inc. >> t [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
