[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

As one of "them", I think Leo Bicknell is probably correct.  My company
would probably not make a big stink about paying a small annual fee for
our legacy IPv4 /24, as long as signing the current RSA didn't impact
our IPv4 /24.

While Owen DeLong's proposed changes to the Resource Reclamation policy
are unlikely to directly affect my company, his approach and attitude
are more likely to convince me to join the ARIN process then the "legacy
holders are evil" attitude I've seen in other messages.

Keith

______________________________________________________________
 
Keith W. Hare                     JCC Consulting, Inc.
keith at jcc.com                     600 Newark Road
Phone: 740-587-0157               P.O. Box 381
Fax: 740-587-0163                 Granville, Ohio 43023
http://www.jcc.com                USA
______________________________________________________________
 


-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Leo Bicknell
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:15 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

In a message written on Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:56:44AM -1000, Randy
Bush wrote:
> see last bullet on slide 9 of
> <http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf>, the promise arin made to
> usg and the community on formation

The bullet Randy is talking about is:

  * Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no
    policy changes

I think we've all had it drilled into our heads enough by the ARIN
Board and Staff that "Fees are not policy", and "The RSA is not
policy."  I don't believe making them sign an RSA or pay a fee would
violate this bullet point.

This might have impact on other things, like reclaiming addresses.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org