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

[VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC]

Lee Howard asked:
> In order to fulfill my duties as a Board member, I am asking the
membership 
> for guidance in setting the budget and fees.  


Could we consider developing a voluntary fund (like the extra dollar you can
contribute to Presidential Election Funds) when you renew?

I would contribute to it, but don't like the idea of forcing Owen to do so,
since he doesn't see things as I do.  :- )

???

Regards,
~Vaughn

PS.  I also just learned (from an offline conversation, quote below) that
ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP space (paid transfers)
between organizations.  Does this seem counter to good stewardship in a time
of impending depletion?  If I have my head on straight, this is a pretty
kind act towards those same early/big assignment holders, isn't it?

------------------------------------------------
> Add to that the fact that we now have a strong incentive for people to
squat on wasted space 
> and maximize their profits from doing so by transferring that space for a
fee as a result of 
> revisions to sections 8.2 and 8.3 of the NRPM by policy proposals 2008-6
and 2009-1, and I 
> just don't see how people would be more willing to give up space for free.
I agree that this 
> will harm small providers. Frankly, I was not convinced that a paid
transfer policy was a 
> good idea, but, rather regarded it as a necessary evil. Hence my strong
efforts to make 
> sure it was temporary in nature.
------------------------------------------------







-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Howard [mailto:spiffnolee at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:07 AM
To: Jon Radel; VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN
a /20




> Yes, I'm a cynic, but....  When I hear things like this I wonder, I truly
wonder 
> what evidence there is that should enough addresses be recovered to put
run-out 
> off for another year, that an awful lot of management teams won't
immediately 
> refocus their efforts on projects with pay offs in the next quarter or two
and 
> shift their entire ipv6 efforts out by a year or so?  

Purely my speculation:
I don't think it's likely that a significant amount of address space can be
recovered
in the next three months.  Even if recovery efforts were very successful,
ARIN 
would be receiving address blocks over the course of many months, as
organizations renumbered into subnets or smaller blocks.  We wouldn't be
able
to say in August 2009 that IANA runout had been delayed by two years. . .
we would just slowly see the projections move farther out.  That's what I
would
guess, anyway.

So, if your company has just begun its IPv6 transition efforts, and has just
realized that it'll take 3-5 years to be replace equipment that needs
replacing,
an extra year might be very important.  You might want ARIN to raise your
fees to fund the staff hours and legal resources.  If you think you can be
ready
in time (whatever you might mean by that), you might not want that.

In order to fulfill my duties as a Board member, I am asking the membership 
for guidance in setting the budget and fees.  For your reference, ARIN
Member Services maintains the web site, and publishes an annual budget and 
financial reports, About Us > Corporate Documents
https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs.html


> While I think the letter was a good thing, don't underestimate the number
of 
> corporate officers who still don't comprehend and/or care what impact this
will 
> have on them in the next couple of years.  It'll take a couple more
letters and 
> a couple of WSJ front-page articles about company, or at least major
initiative, 
> failures due to inability to get v4 addresses, before everyone gets that
this is 
> something that they have to pay attention to.

Is there anything we (the ARIN community) can do to help?  Probably a better
topic for ARIN-PPML.

Lee