[ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks

[Bill Van Emburg]

Ron da Silva wrote:

> Does anyone here principally care to reject 2002-3 and/or 2003-15 because
> the do not want ANY change in allocation/assignment size towards longer
> prefixes?  It appears that most of the comments thusfar have been around
> the details in support of a change.
> 
I, for one, think both proposals (2002-3 and 2003-15) should be accepted 
as is.  I have a few additional comments on 2003-15 and the discussion 
that has surrounded it.

If anyone actually needed a reason to support Afrinic's creation, this 
discussion provides it.  Here we have several people from N. America 
arguing the political, economic and social realities of Africa.  That is 
a business best left to people from Africa.  I, for one, am embarrassed 
to be from the same country as some of those who have argued against 
this policy to date.  To me, some of the arguments presented simply 
support the "ugly American" image that exists in the rest of the world.

It is completely and entirely reasonable to have a separate policy for 
this part of the ARIN region, specifically because it *is* a separate 
region, except by accident of Internet history.  It is irrelevant 
whether or when Afrinic will or will not fully take over IP allocation 
for Africa.  Let's just drop that part of the discussion.

How many times have people on this list argued their case for having an 
ARIN-specific policy (as opposed to using an existing one from RIPE or 
APNIC) on the grounds that ARIN is a different region, and "things are 
different here..."??  I supported the use of that argument then, and I 
support it now, wrt 2003-15.

The basis for evaluation of this policy should include things like:
(...and I do not claim this list is all-inclusive)
* Is their a need?
* Is the proposal reasonable and responsible?
* Will the proposal accomplish its goals?
* Will it cause damage to the global routing tables, or cause some other 
adverse technical impact?
* Will it promote use of the Internet?
* Is it fair to those it affects?

I believe that those who've expressed some knowledge of the situation in 
Africa have made a reasonable case for the need.
I believe the proposal is well designed to address some aspects of that 
need.
I believe that more discussion should occur before considering 
generalization of this policy to other parts of the ARIN region, but no 
further discussion is really necessary wrt Africa and this policy (at 
least for me to feel comfortable with my decision).
I believe the numbers show that anyone would be hard-pressed to make a 
case that there will be a meaningful adverse impact on routing due to 
this policy, at least for a few years.
I believe that it will "facilitate the advancement of the Internet," 
which is part of ARIN's charter.


Leo Bicknell posted a question to this list on 9/24:
"Are we changing the requirement from the technical (number of users)
to the political (the poor and disadvantaged get extra help)?  That
seems to be a pretty fundamental change to me."

I believe that we are changing nothing in how we go about creating 
policy with this proposal.  ARIN has *always* balanced social, economic 
and political issues against technical ones.  I believe that ARIN has 
done a pretty good job of staying mostly technical about it, but the 
very argument being made by Mr. Bicknell and Owen DeLong is a 
non-technical argument, at least to some degree.  (Let me remind 
everyone that I *support* the adoption of 2002-3.)  It is appropriate to 
consider the realities of the situation when creating policy!


In any case, I want to make it clear to the AC that there are a number 
of folks "lurking" out on this list who support Africa-specific policy, 
and in particular, who support 2003-15.
-- 
				     -- Bill Van Emburg
					Quadrix Solutions, Inc.