[arin-ppml] Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement

[Joe Maimon]

William Herrin wrote:
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>
>     1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement
>     2. Proposal Originator
>           1. name: William Herrin
>           2. email: bill at herrin.us
>           3. telephone: 703-534-2652
>           4. organization: self
>     3. Proposal Version: 1.0
>     4. Date: 4/26/2012
>     5. Proposal type: new
>     6. Policy term: permanent
>     7. Policy statement:
>
> Where ARIN must evaluate a LIR's IPv4 address utilization in order to
> perform any duty, ARIN shall not compel the production of customer
> identities for any customer holding a total of less than 8 IPv4
> addresses unless all reasonable alternatives for verifying utilization
> have been exhausted.
>

I support the proposal as written in either version.

(It is troubling how we waffle between specificity and ambiguity)

I hope to see it continued to be discussed further, along with what I 
see as the larger picture involved.

I read this proposal with the perspective that ARIN has always had a 
huge discretion in deciding what level of documentation and which 
circumstances meet their threshold for satisfying the documented policy 
requirements.

That is perfectly normal. After all, dealing with customer requests is 
mostly the same way.

Eventually, you arrive at the bottom line.

I know justified utilization when I see it and the more I see of it, the 
more discerning my vision gets.

What is also going on is that the barrier to satisfying ARIN has been 
rising at a similar rate to the dissipation of the available IPv4 resources.

This is also natural and likely also how we deal with our customer 
requests as well.

Yes, that results in historical and size imbalances, with incumbents and 
experienced entities more likely to be advantaged than others. Also 
perfectly normal and natural, unfortunate as it may appear to many.

Recently we have arrived at the point where proposals such as these will 
seek to head off the natural progression of the ARIN satisfaction threshold.

I believe that is inevitable. I believe this proposal is not nearly as 
radical as some other would be.

I also do not believe the proposal is an actual solution to the overall 
issue. It is simply not possible to artificially check the progression 
of the satisfaction threshold with ever increasing scarcity, not to 
mention the well known bureaucratic scope creep effect.

In short, going down this path is likely to result in never ending 
attempts to refine, restrict, define and control the methods ARIN is to 
use in an attempt to substitute the communities satisfaction threshold 
with ARIN's internally developed one.

I am not sure it is possible, I am not certain it is a useful 
expenditure of effort and I doubt very much the end result would be any 
different.

All that aside, I do believe it is time to start dealing more 
forthrightly with this issue and as such I support this proposal, as its 
discussion and adoption may serve to better focus our attention on this 
aspect of IPv4 scarcity.

Best,

Joe