[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship

[william at elan.net]

> ARIN multi-homing policy I see as quite reasonable.  If you can fully 
> utilize a /21, you will be allocated a /20.  Many entities have made use of 
> it quite successfully.  Perhaps we should look at modifying that policy 
> slightly, perhaps by only requiring people to fully utilize a /22 in order 
> to get a /20 (this is just a strawman).
Why not just give /21 for /22 or /22 for /23? And do you really expect 
less companies to get allocations of the size they really need if you 
decrease requirement to /22 justification? I'd bet more would apply and 
qualify, maybe less would lie about it but if they did before, they could 
then too and it would just make it easier to get /20 for them.

> Our goal here should be to persuade those who are reading but 
> not participating to develop an opinion such that they too can help us gain 
> concensus one way or another. 
I agree with you completely. And by arguing on the list we maybe able to
get people on the list to agree to one side or the other. But there does 
not exit any way right now, that ARIN would agree to, that would provide 
for a way to check if the majority on the list support one side, especially
considering that many do not like to actively partipate and just listen. 
The best way to even try would be to allow polls of list members to be 
conducted (obviously only of those who have listened to the argument from 
the start).

> There was nothing close to concensus at the 
> last public policy meeting, I really hope we can fix that at the next 
> meeting, no matter which way it goes.
When confronted about it arin BoT admitted that they are required to make 
decisions based on opinions represented on this list rather then what can 
be seen on ARIN meeting. While I do not believe they can do it even if 
when they try (which I'm sure they are), I do think taking an argument 
that ARIN meeting makes it possible to establish a concensus on this 
issue is wrong, especially when taking into account that:
 1. Almost all attending meeting already have an ip block and this 
    is not a "hot" issue for them
 2. Eventhough out of ARIN's members 80-90% are small ISPs, out of 
    companies represented on ARIN meeting < 5% are small ISPs.

The best we can hope to do is get 50% of large ISPs represented in the 
meeting to support such a proposal, if they do I dare say that would 
represented a concensus for ARIN community since majority of small ISPs 
support the proposal and overwhelming majority of others who are not 
members or ARIN but should still be counted as part of the decision on any 
policy made for ARIN region support this as well.

> Alec
> 
> --
> Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> Chief Technology Officer
> Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
>