[ppml] New Alternative Text... was: version thought

[Glenn Wiltse]

   Current IPv4 plolicy says 25% imediate use, 50% within a year. I used 
the number needed within a year...  I'm certianly willing to accept just 
about any number that would allow for consenus, what ever that would be... 
I just wanted to avoid the use of a pointer to IPv4 policy, so needed a 
number.

That would be great if you could present both, perticularly
of AC, BOT, and Kevin would all agree that was OK.

Glenn Wiltse

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:

>>    Glad you found it a acceptable alternititave. I think it will
>> be good if we have some options available when it comes time to
>> meet in Canada.
>>
>>    The big things I like about my proposal vs. the current 2005-1 text.
>> 
>> My text allows for large organizations a clear way to get more
>> space then a very small site could get. This is the part I thought
>> would have been totaly left up to ARIN staff to deal with if the
>> current 2005-1 text should get aproved. To do this required not
>> using the term 'end site', and defining what it would take to
>> get more then a single /48 address block.
>> 
> I understand.  I am actually OK with staff discretion on this, but,
> I can see both sides of that coin.
>
>>   The use of actual numbers of unique addresses, rather then
>> referring to IPv4 policy... The numbers I used are the exact
>> numbers that would be used today, if a organization was to
>> apply for IPv4 space... I agree that these are basicly arbitrary
>> but it seems the only alternititive would be to say 'anyone'
>> who wants PI space can have it of they are willing to pay for
>> it.
>> 
> Actually, they are not.  Today, to qualify for a /22 in IPv4,
> you must show use of a /23 (510 unique addresses), so, technically,
> you have doubled the requirement (plus a little).
>
>>    I've re-worded the text I submited previously. None of the
>> basic concepts were changed, however I belive this text is
>> more clear on a few points... Perticularly with regard to
>> single-site end-user subsequent requests for space. (6.5.8.3.a
>> in this version).
>> 
> Well... To my reading, you've come a whole lot closer to what I
> consider acceptable requirements vs. my original interpretation
> of your use of the term large organizations.
>
>>   I know it's too late to submit a formal policy proposal at this
>> point, but I would like it if this could at least be used as
>> an alternative text/wording to the current offical 2005-1 text
>> if we can not achive concensus on that offical policy proposal text.
>> 
> I will here publicly state that I, personally am willing to have both
> alternatives presented together during the 2005-1 presentation.  I don't
> know how Kevin feels about this, and, I don't know what rules, if any,
> may preclude it.  However, I'd be happy to share the podium with you
> if that works for the AC/BOT and Kevin, my 2005-1 co-author.
>
> Owen
>