[ppml] New ARIN Sub-region Policy Proposal (Rural-America)

[Owen DeLong]

Michael,
	I think you missed, entirely, the point of John's post.  I doubt
that he is actually trying to put this forward as a policy (although, if
2003-15 passes, I'd support it with some cleanup work).  I think he was
trying to clarify his opposition to sub-regional policies and point out
that AfriNIC is not a one-time special case.

Owen


--On Tuesday, October 7, 2003 5:00 PM +0100 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com 
wrote:

>> The ARIN sub-region known as "Rural America", those
>> localities with a population of less than 1 million
>> persons here by proposes the following Policy Proposal.
>
> This is an example of a poorly thought out
> policy proposal. It doesn't conform to the
> simple structure requested by ARIN on the
> website and it wasn't submitted to the ARIN
> Member Services prior to being announced.
> Given that this is being proposed a couple
> of weeks before the meeting, I think it should
> also have started life in the Policy BOF
> that was expressly created to help people
> put together better, more coherent policy
> proposals.
>
>> 3.  Utilization Reporting and Justification.  All other
>> ARIN policies reguarding the reporting of justification information
>> for the allocation of IPv4 address space will remain
>> in effect.
>
> Totally unneccesary verbage. A policy proposal
> onle ever changes the parts of policy that it changes.
> There is no need to say that the rest of the
> policies will be unchanged.
>
>> 4.  IPv6 considerations:  Rural America providers are eager
>> to start testing and deploying IPv6 networks.  Rural America
>> operators have the ability to deploy IPv6 quicker than larger
>> providers.  Therefor, providers that receive IPv4 space
>> under this policy shall also be permitted to request and
>> receive a single /48 of IPv6 space.  This will help enable
>> rural providers and move them forward with IPv6 technology.
>> Further allocations will be handled under current IPv6 policy.
>
> This is a radical change to the IPv6 policy and should
> really be discussed on its own. This is the equivalent
> of saying that rural ISPs should get a single /32 allocation
> of IPv4 addresses which is ludicrous. If there is some
> reason why this class of ISP cannot justify an IPv6 /32
> then we should work on changing that aspect of the
> IPv6 policy.
>
>> 5.  Pricing.  The ARIN BOT will review and evaluate the pricing
>> for these allocations, taking into strong consideration the
>> economic conditions of Rural America providers.  The suggested
>> "cost" for these allocations will be $1250 USD per year.
>
> This item is not a policy change; it is a request
> for the BoT to review and act. It doesn't belong
> in a policy proposal and may, indeed, have merit
> on its own as an item of business at an ARIN meeting
> outside of the policy process.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
>
>
>