I do not support the re-adding of organizations with any size of IPv4
holdings back to the wait-list.
Speaking only for myself,
Andrew
On 8/18/2020 8:39 AM, Hayee Bokhari wrote:
Seems like a plan,
Go for it.
Regards
Hayee Bokhari
514-341-1579 Ex 212
800-427-6012 Ex 212
bokh...@cronomagic.com <mailto:bokh...@cronomagic.com>
http://www.cronomagic.com
Hi all, Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed
all of the comments. There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit
of this policy, and 5 against.
Many of these comments express support for removing the
restriction on total holdings for a grandfathered organization,
because this was not a restriction when they were originally
placed on the list.
As such, the amended proposal would look like this:
ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the
waitlist at the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous
position (STRIKE THIS: if their total holdings of IPv4 address
space amounts to a /18 or less.) The maximum size aggregate that a
reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.
All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number
of months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any
requests met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and
removed from the waiting list.Thoughts?
-Anita Nikolich
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson
<isa...@olson-network.com <mailto:isa...@olson-network.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
On behalf of my organization, I would also like to voice
support for this policy. As much as I find some arguments
against the policy compelling, namely that nobody is
guaranteed to receive any space within any kind of time frame
when using the waiting list, I think it’s pretty clear to the
community that an error was made in moving the target out from
underneath companies who had already been patiently waiting on
the list in accordance with the requirements at the time they
were added.
As far as implementation details, I absolutely believe that
two of the most important measures to prevent fraud were the
introduction of the /22 limit and the 60 month waiting period
to transfer wait list issued space. Although we may have erred
in retroactively removing orgs based on the new /20 limit for
total space held, I think that the grandfathered orgs should
be subject to the same treatment as the orgs who remained on
the list after 2019-16 was implemented. Otherwise, I believe
we would once again be creating a situation of unequal
treatment for the orgs who had to reduce their request size to
a /22 after the implementation of 2019-16, and were subject to
the new 60 month waiting period upon issuance.
With regards to the proposed /18 limit, I do find that there
is little to support this arbitrary boundary when the original
waitlist policy specified no such condition. Since we are
remedying a one time error, I think that we shouldn’t be too
particular about which of the aggrieved parties are allowed to
make use of that remedy. Although I personally believe that
most organizations holding greater than a /18 could probably
afford to obtain space in other ways, I think the duty of ARIN
to be fair and impartial requires us to take a bit broader
view. Asking an organization to take a smaller allocation, or
wait longer to transfer allocated space, seems to me to be a
much less onerous retroactive application of new policy than
drawing any boundary which results in complete ineligibility
for some.
Isaiah Olson
Olson Tech, LLC
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net
<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you
experience any issues.
Hi all, Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed all
of the comments. There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this
policy, and 5 against.
Many of these comments express support for removing the restriction on
total holdings for a grandfathered organization, because this was not
a restriction when they were originally placed on the list.
As such, the amended proposal would look like this:
ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position (STRIKE THIS:
if their total holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or
less.) The maximum size aggregate that a reinstated organization may
qualify for is a /22.
All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any
requests met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and
removed from the waiting list.Thoughts?
-Anita Nikolich
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson <isa...@olson-network.com
<mailto:isa...@olson-network.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
On behalf of my organization, I would also like to voice support
for this policy. As much as I find some arguments against the
policy compelling, namely that nobody is guaranteed to receive any
space within any kind of time frame when using the waiting list, I
think it’s pretty clear to the community that an error was made in
moving the target out from underneath companies who had already
been patiently waiting on the list in accordance with the
requirements at the time they were added.
As far as implementation details, I absolutely believe that two of
the most important measures to prevent fraud were the introduction
of the /22 limit and the 60 month waiting period to transfer wait
list issued space. Although we may have erred in retroactively
removing orgs based on the new /20 limit for total space held, I
think that the grandfathered orgs should be subject to the same
treatment as the orgs who remained on the list after 2019-16 was
implemented. Otherwise, I believe we would once again be creating
a situation of unequal treatment for the orgs who had to reduce
their request size to a /22 after the implementation of 2019-16,
and were subject to the new 60 month waiting period upon issuance.
With regards to the proposed /18 limit, I do find that there is
little to support this arbitrary boundary when the original
waitlist policy specified no such condition. Since we are
remedying a one time error, I think that we shouldn’t be too
particular about which of the aggrieved parties are allowed to
make use of that remedy. Although I personally believe that most
organizations holding greater than a /18 could probably afford to
obtain space in other ways, I think the duty of ARIN to be fair
and impartial requires us to take a bit broader view. Asking an
organization to take a smaller allocation, or wait longer to
transfer allocated space, seems to me to be a much less onerous
retroactive application of new policy than drawing any boundary
which results in complete ineligibility for some.
Isaiah Olson
Olson Tech, LLC
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net
<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you
experience any issues.
2020-08-1811:39:03
Notice
This communication is intended to be received only by the individual[s] or
entity[s] to whom or to which it is addressed, and contains information
which is confidential, privileged and subject to copyright. Any
unauthorized
use, copying, review or disclosure is prohibited. Please notify the sender
immediately if you have received this communication in error [by calling
collect, if necessary] so that we can arrange for its return at our
expense.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated assistance and cooperation.
Cette communication est destinée uniquement à la personne ou à la personne
morale à qui elle est adressée. Elle contient de l'information
confidentielle, protégée par le secret professionnel et sujette à des
droits
d'auteurs. Toute utilisation, reproduction, consultation ou
divulgation non
autorisées sont interdites. Nous vous prions d'aviser immédiatement
l'expéditeur si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur (en
appelant à
frais virés, si nécessaire), afin que nous puissions prendre des
dispositions pour en assurer le renvoi à nos frais. Nous vous remercions à
l'avance de votre coopération.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
