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

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:02:52AM +0200, William Stucke wrote:
> RIR		MIN SIZE	ELIGIBILITY
> APNIC		/20		/22
> RIPE		/20		/22
> LACNIC	/20		/22
> ARIN		/20		/20
> 
> In addition, in terms of "inter-registry policy coordination", RIPE
> currently makes /22 allocations for their "Micro Members" and only requires
> a demonstrated need for a /22, I believe. AfriNIC intends doing the same.
> Why is ARIN out of step?

I've never thought to ask the question before, but I agree 100% that
ARIN is out of step, and wonder why.

In a message written on Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:47:07AM +0200, William Stucke wrote:
> Africans, and AfriNIC members, are unanimous in supporting 2003-15. I
> haven't heard a single African refuse to support 2002-3. I'm happy to record
> my support for 2002-3 hereby, but do rather wonder why it's taken so long to
> get through the system. I haven't heard a convincing argument that
> supporting one will harm the other. Why, oh why, do (some few vocal) North
> Americans refuse to support 2003-15?

I support 2002-3.  Actually, I supported several versions before
it, and to this day think it should be both allocation and assignment.
I believe you'll find a strong history of me supporting those
efforts.

Part of what bothers me here is that 6 or 12 months ago when 2002-3
discussion was going on I don't recall many (or any, really) of the
"Africa People" who have been supporting 2003-15 stepping up to
voice their support.  There were proposals for a policy that did
exactly what African's seem to want, and the 2002-3 proposal (which
seems to not include assignments and allocations as desired), and
yet no one came forward to help.

Now that we're getting some traction on 2002-3, we're sidetracked
by this Africa proposal.  At least two people have responded on
list when I asked them to support 2002-3 instead (or Owen asked,
as amended) that they felt 2003-15 had a better chance of passing,
so they just wanted the local policy.  My inference was that they
felt 2002-3 would be defeated because the "big bad backbones" in
the US would never let it happen here, but they might be indifferent
enough to let Africa get away with it.

Indeed, that is somewhat my worry as well.  It is possible that
2003-15 would pass, and that people would use it passing to support
defeating 2002-3.  I can think of a half dozen excuses (some of
which have already been posted on the list) that might be used to
support that line of thinking.

There is a real problem that having both proposals in the system
will split the vote.  I think the discussion here only supports
that conclusion.  Clearly people have strong opinions one way or
the other, and I see no clear majority.  The only way to win is to
not split the vote, joining up and outvoting the "big bad backbones".

Now, if we're going to join forces, it's going to be behind 2002-3,
or a new proposal that is global, and includes allocations and
assignments.  We're not going to join forces behind 2003-15, because
it applies only to Africa, so for the people who've been working
to get this in the US for some time now that would do absolutely
no good.

It is for this reason I would ask the African contingent to withdraw
2003-15, and either support 2002-3, or if having both types of
membership is important draft a new proposal that is global and has
both assignments and allocations.

As long as we have both we're going to get bogged down in the
global-vs-local us-vrs-africa big-bad-backbone-vrs-small-nice-guy
wars and never win.  There are some valid opinions and some invalid
opinions on both sides in each of those discussions, let's just avoid
them, work together, and get something that actually helps _all_
of us.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030930/3b53f9ed/attachment.sig>