Niki, Thank you for your feedback. But, I am unsure how you are relating the existence of a continuing supply of addresses in ARIN's free pool to the problem statement....which is...."Current policy prevents an organization that receives BLOCK A in the previous 12 months from transferring to their own organization in another RIR a different block, BLOCK B, though it may have been issued years ago."
Perhaps you could clarify your position.....thanks again. bd On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:46 PM, xiaofan yang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Thanks for your update and summary. > > My answer is to tick option 1 with answer of NO. As ARIN still has the > free pool, there is no need to further discuss this proposal. I would like > to suggest to abandon this draft. > > Regards, > > Niki > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Bill Darte <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The Draft Policy ARIN 2014-2 Improving Anti-Flip Language was discussed >> at the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting in Chicago last week and while there >> was no consensus for the Draft using current language, the community >> encouraged the AC to continue work on it as there was sympathy for the >> problem statement. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_2.html >> >> Draft Policy Issue: >> Simply, the author wishes the Anti-Flip language currently used in the >> NRPM to be relaxed, allowing an Inter-RIR transfer within their own >> organization of previously existing addresses....though they may have >> received a new allocation or assignment within the last 12 months. >> >> Current draft language states that the organization may do such a >> transfer, but may not use the actual addresses which were received from >> ARIN (or through transfer) in the previous 12 months. But they could >> therefore transfer other resources holdings. >> >> Request for feedback: >> In order to further this discussion and gain a consensus, I would like to >> once again ask the community to speak in favor or against this Draft Policy >> so that it may be presented and discussed at our next Public Policy >> Consultation at NANOG in June. >> >> 1. Yes or No. Should the community relax existing policy which attempts >> to limit the transfer of ARIN resources out of region, in order to allow an >> organization flexibility to move address blocks to another portion of their >> own organization in another region, even though they might have received >> different addresses within ARIN in the last 12 months? >> >> (Note current policy would still restrict availability of new addresses >> to the organization for a period of 12 months after the transfer and is not >> being changed by this draft). >> >> 2. If YES above, are there any other qualifications or limits that >> should be imposed on the resources transferred or the organization? >> >> (Note that a vote of NO to question #1 would essentially ask the Advisory >> Council to abandon this draft policy leaving existing policy in place.) >> >> Thanks to all who continue to work within the community to exercise their >> right and duty to craft appropriate policy guiding ARIN's important role in >> Internet number resource management. >> >> Bill Darte >> Policy Shepherd for 2014-2 >> ARIN Advisory Council >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> > >
_______________________________________________ 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
