[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1

[Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com]

> sadly, yes i do.  there has been reasonable debate here as to the long 
term
> viability of a "let ipv6 have an ipv4-like swamp" strategy.

Until the opponents of an IPv6 swamp define 
what a "swamp" is and why it is bad, you are likely
to gain few supporters. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to
explain why you consider that a particular policy
proposal will lead to a bad swamp.

In the absence of this type of explanation, few
people on this list will understand what you mean.

> any PI policy
> for ipv6 really should be experimental/limited. 

All ARIN policies are limited in the sense that no
policies are sacred and unchangeable. When things
change and a policy needs to go away or change into
something else, the PPML can take up the charge.

Let's not forget that there are intelligent human
beings implementing these policies under an intelligent
board of trustees. Can we not assume that these people will
limit the damage if there is a run on the bank? If not,
then perhaps we need a policy that allows the trustees
to suspend allocations in the same way that the New York
Stock Exchange can suspend trading of a share in unusual
circumstances.

--Michael Dillon