consistancy

j:
  I dont' think anyone is accusing any party of being frivolous or
arbitrary. And, I do think we'll all survive the current policy, even if
it does result in significant extra work to achieve compliance or present
a case for an exception.
  My point, however, was that you can no more isolate the perception of
imbalance from the new policy than you can the need for conservation from
the recognition that there are vast unused address blocks. And like it or
not, I think that perception relevant. If the only result of this
discussion is that there is a greater recognition of imbalance, then I
think it's served the original purpose of those who started it. And if
from that recognition there is resulting action to work the greater
problem, then I think we've exceeded our expectations, even if that action
can't necessarily take place within the confines of ARIN.

Chuck Scott
Gaslight Media


On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, J Bacher wrote:

> 
> 
> > > However, you all must accept the fact that reclaiming IP space and more
> > > efficient use of new IP allocations are not mutually exclusive.  They are in
> > > fact separate discussions, and decisions on whether to do one will not
> > > affect the other.
> > > 
> > > Alec
> > 
> > Alec:
> >   Agreed. Reclaiming IP space and efficient use of new allocations are
> > certainly not mutually exclusive, Similarly, the aggrigate preasure on IP
> > address space affects both discussions and their outcome. Also, the
> > outcome of both will affect the aggrigate preasure on IP address space.
> > They are therefore intimately interwoven.
> 
> Please.  ARIN did not choose to enforce a virtual webserver model because
> it was either bored or there was no concern over available allocation.
> 
> "Efficient use" was redefined for a reason.   The only issue is whether
> reclaiming space is a viability and whether ARIN gave sufficient
> consideration to the ramifications of enforcing this new policy.
>