[arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20

[Joe Maimon]

Lee Howard wrote:

> After a few minutes of searching, I dug up an old post of mine:
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-August/011711.html
> where I ask, "How much time would we have?" under various assumptions.  I think the
> best scenario within the realm of realism is a 30% rate of reclamation.   If that's about 
> right, then we gain, at most, a year.  Please feel free to question my assumptions or my
> methodology.  If you don't, then please answer the question: "How much (effort=time=) 
> money should ARIN spend on reclamation?"  

The less the better with the current burn rate. I dont expect that burn 
rate to trend downward until imminent or actual exhaustion.

The less that is reclaimed before that point, the better.

> 
> This is, to me, why this debate is a membership question, and not a policy question.
> 
> Lee
> 

Member speaking, the only reason to perform reclamation now is for 
reasons of good stewardship, which is a goal I wholly support. I 
understand from the publicly available meeting reports plenty of 
reclamation and return already occurs on an ongoing basis.

Picking fights with members and murky contractual battles are not part 
of good stewardship. Outreach is. In the current and coming environment 
I am expecting and hoping arin to be thinking big tent.

Preserving the current burn rate for any period of time less than years 
is not worth any additional effort or significant goodwill loss.

Stated differently, without any changes in policy or reality, reclaimed 
space wont actually do most of the participants in these threads any 
good, the reclaimed space will be allocated and consumed in the same 
manner as the current space is.

Joe