Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)

[Mury]

;)

You are probably right.  ARIN could hire an outside entity to retrieve
unused space on a commission basis.  I realize that's not going to happen,
but it's just a thought.  

I'm certainly not going to attempt to prove you wrong, I don't have time,
but why can't there at least be language drafted?  Maybe there is a good
samaritan at one of these companies that wants to start a trend and get
some good press out of the deal.

Draft some language and see where it goes.  How can that hurt?

Mury

spell-checker broken

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Trevor Paquette wrote:

> Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of money that
> no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove otherwise..
> 
> Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are doing well. Try to encourage them to return their unused IP space..
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On 
> > Behalf Of Mury
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM
> > To: sigma at smx.pair.com
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy
> > Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come 
> > up a lot over
> > the last couple years.
> > 
> > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking 
> > about it on some
> > mailling list.  What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP
> > space?  It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone 
> > to make some
> > phone calls again.
> > 
> > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money 
> > pot, so maybe
> > ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of 
> > that wasted IP
> > space... half joking.
> > 
> > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that addresses this
> > wasted IP space.  It probably shouldn't be a policy because 
> > you don't want
> > unenforable policies, but there should be something.  And then there
> > should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these 
> > space holders.
> > 
> > Mury
> > 
> > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of 
> > multiple /8-24s have
> > > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current 
> > criteria)?  That
> > > > would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it?
> > > 
> > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it 
> > is to impose and
> > > enforce policy retroactively.  When you're talking about 
> > allocations that
> > > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action?  
> > ARIN should
> > > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP 
> > space, while
> > > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy 
> > assignments return
> > > them whenever possible.
> > > 
> > > Kevin
> > > 
> > 
> 
>