Hi Gerry,
On 2026-09-22 13:21, Gerry George wrote:
As one of the shepherds of this policy, let me assure you, that the
opposition which has been expressed is in no way being ignored. In
fact, this was considered during our last AC meeting, and this is
expected to be vigorously discussed and hopefully well ventilated on
PPML and more so, at the ARIN 58 members meeting when this policy is
being presented.
Thanks for considering the arguments opposing the amendments to
ARIN-2025-3 at the AC meeting. I am very curious as to what was
discussed, since the AC meeting minutes are not available on the ARIN
website. I look forward to talking about it with you at ARIN 58.
I would like to bring your attention to the inaccuracies in the AC's
assessment as presented in the original announcement yesterday, which
states:
The proposal seeks to remove some perceived usage minimums, particularly to the
benefit of smaller operators operating within the ARIN service region, by
reducing the required minimum space threshold to qualify for allowing use of
ARIN IPv4 resource assignments outside of the ARIN region.
*This recommendation has been generally supported overwhelmingly by
the community, although some community members have expressed a
preference to see the elimination of all out-of-region restrictions.
The Advisory Council found that this view is not representative of the
feedback overwhelmingly expressed by the community and that it
maintains key restrictions to prevent attempts to bypass, manipulate,
or exploit unintended gaps in this policy to limit potential abuse,
and that the policy is suitable to be advanced to recommended status. *
This policy, upon adoption, lowers the minimum IPv4 utilization threshold
within the ARIN region required for organizations to qualify to deploy
ARIN-assigned IPv4 resources outside the ARIN region.
The bolded section of the assessment does not state the crux of the
opposition during the previous round on August 20th, which is the
addition of clause that forbade NRPM section 9 from being used with the
ARIN waiting list. In fact, during that round of discussion, there was
only opposition.
Instead, the assessment states that the "recommendation has been
generally supported overwhelmingly by the community," with the only
opposing argument that it presented was a desire by certain community
members to eliminate all out-of-region restrictions. While it may be
true that the majority of the community disagrees with that view
(including me), that was hardly the strongest argument anyone's had
against the adoption of the policy.
This seems to diverge quite a bit from what happened in the AC meeting,
since you were there and confirmed that better arguments against the
policy had clearly been discussed. As a matter of public record, and in
the interest of transparency, it would be in everyone's best interest
for that assessment to be updated with the correct arguments against the
policy as discussed during the AC meeting. This will avoid the
perception that the AC meeting was just arguing against a strawman.
Best regards,
Quantum
_______________________________________________
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.
