[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region

[mlawrie at zanet.co.za]

Owen DeLong wrote:-

> --On Thursday, October 2, 2003 7:53 AM +0200 mlawrie at zanet.co.za
> wrote:
> ...[snip]....
> > IMHO, the best action is
> >
> >    Decouple 2002-3 from 2003-15
> 
> Agreed.  I've never intended to couple them.

Well, you've fooled me on this point. So let's look at 2003-15 on its 
own, and leave 2002-3 to its own devices and for discussion under 
subject that refers to 2002-3 and not 2003-15.

> 
> >    Deal with each proposal on its individual merits
> 
> ...[snip 2002-3 stuff]...
> 
> 2003-15, as is, has significant disenfranchising effects on small(er)
> ISPs in North America and, as such, would do substantial damage to
> ARIN as an organization.  It contains good policy, but, the
> sub-regional exclusivitiy is extremely harmful, and, should not be
> allowed to pass.

The term "disenfranchise" in this neck of the woods means to take 
something away (like a vote, or some power or right or suchlike). 
2003-15 does no such thing, it takes nothing from anyone. It 
endeavours to make Internet services in a particular sub-region of 
ARIN's control more accessible (ie it "enfranchises" ISPs). That it 
does so to a subset of the ARIN region of control is true, and it 
seems presumptious to suggest that this action will have some kind of 
blocking effect should other subregions ask for similar 
enfranchising. The argument can go either way, ie "it's working OK in 
one subregion without the sky falling on our heads so let's try it 
elsewhere", or "it was an utter disaster in the first subregion so 
never again". If perchance it is the latter situation, ARIN has the 
sunset in sight with the pending activation of AfriNIC, and there 
will be full recovery from the disaster. If the former, the policy 
will surely spread to other subregions.

So if others that operate elsewhere in ARIN's region of control want 
a similar enfrancising, let them motivate accordingly, but that's a 
separate and subsequent matter.

It is very difficult from here (Africa) to see any reason why 
exclusinve subregional enfranchising is "extremely harmful" to 
anyone. A subsequent proposal to extend the enfranchised subregion 
will surely stand or fall on its merits at the time, and should not 
be pre-judged at the time that 2003-15 is debated.


> >    Deal with extending 2003-15 (were this needed) at a later meeting
> >
> If 2003-15 is passed as is, it will become virtually impossible to do
> this.

I will defend your right to have your beliefs, but for sure I 
disagree completely with this particular one of yours.

Mike
-- 
Mike Lawrie.
Ph +27 12 348 0944 or 072 480 8898
<mlawrie at zanet.co.za>