[ppml] Follow on to 2003-4, and suggested change.

[Michael.Dillon at radianz.com]

>I'd specifically prefer this thread not go too deep into the
>discussion of the 200 number, if we want to change that number let's
>start a different thread and do it independent of this change so
>the two don't share fate if they come to a meeting.

Actually, I don't think the policy should have a fee waiver at all.
If there is a fee waiver, the BoT should just go ahead and do it
because they can.

>From a policy point of view, it is better to focus on what this
time period is meant to represent. The policy is drawing a distinction
between the time before X number of allocations of size Y or greater.
Why? What changes? Is there a name for the new state of affairs after
the change has occurred?

This is important because if we can put our finger on the essence of
this new state of affairs, then we are better able to go back and 
determine how to best measure its onset.

My take is that the onset of IPv6 critical mass is N ISPs who have
each assigned more than M allocations of /48. In other words, we have
lots of ISPs who are using IPv6 enough so that their IPv6 service has
reached a critical mass for that ISP's own network.

Do you think that "critical mass" is the right threshold event that
we are looking for here?

--Michael Dillon