[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:49 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

>
>> If the address
>> holder wishes to
>> aggregate into a single block, ARIN
>> may work with
>> the address holder
>> to arrive at an allocation or
>> assignment which is
>> equal to or smaller
>> than the sum of their existing blocks
>
>
> Why equal to or smaller? If the agreggate allocation is LARGER than  
> the
> sum of the existing blocks and yet still is fully justified, what is
> wrong with that?
>
Existing policy already covers this.  This policy does not remove that
other policy.
> Note that your wording means that an organization which is about to
> apply for additional addresses, needs to wait until after they have
> received their next allocation, then immediately return it back  
> with all
> their old addresses to get an aggregate allocation. This is twice the
> hassle for both ARIN and the applicant organization.
>
No, it doesn't. It means that an organization has to apply for their
convergence under a different policy.

Suggest you read NRPM 4.7

> The key criteria must be that the allocation given to the org is fully
> justified. There is no need to pick nits and have a different
> requirement than a normal allocation.
>
Except this policy is there specifically to allow an organization which
has legacy space to retain as much of their space as they choose
to while returning what they are willing to.  In many cases, this may
be more than they could actually justify under current policy, but,
since the alternative would be forcing them to keep ALL of their
space in order to avoid such a provision altogether, I think this
is an improvement.

> Since an org needs to do a complete review of their addressing  
> situation
> before applying under this policy, it should allow, and perhaps even
> encourage orgs to apply for both an additional allocation and the
> aggregation process at the same time.
>
There are other policies that cover that situation.
> As far as all the language about exemption, I strongly disagree. Every
> holder of IP address resources must sign the same RSA that we sign and
> pay fees according to the same fee schedule under which we pay fees.
> There must be a level playing field.
>
OK, so, you'd rather force the holders that are not under RSAs to  
keep all
of their space and return none of it in order to remain fee exempt?   
That
doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I'm not exempting anyone who is
already paying fees (except in the case where they return sizeable
chunks of address space, and, in those cases, I think the exemptions
are worth while in order to encourage the returns).
> If an organization can reduce the number of distinct route  
> announcements
> into the public Internet by aggregating multiple allocations into one,
> then we should allow and encourage that. But not by creating a special
> class of address holder, the IP address nobility.
>
See NRPM 4.7  It covers this quite well.  This proposal does not
change 4.7.  It also doesn't target what you are describing.  This
proposal is targeted at LEGACY HOLDERS who are already a
special class of address holder and attempts to find ways to make
them less special.

Hopefully this clarification allows you to see the proposal more clearly
for what it is and the benefits it offers.
> There are parallels to this in regard to immigration status in the  
> USA.
> Illegal immigrants live and work in the USA but pay no taxes. The
> government could either give these people citizenship and allow  
> them to
> continue to be free from paying taxes, or the government could give  
> them
> citizenship and require them to follow all the laws that other  
> citizens
> follow, including paying income tax. In both cases, the illegal
> immigrants' past transgressions are being forgiven. The various US
> amnesty bills since 1986 have forgiven past transgressions but have  
> not
> given special status in the future.
>
Except that there are some key differences:

	1.	Legacy holders are not here illegaly.
	2.	Legacy holders can't be deported.
	3.	Legacy holders can remain and continue not paying "taxes"
		without any risk because they haven't violated any law/rules.
	4.	Legacy holders are already exempt from ARIN contracts
		because they never signed one and ARIN is not a governmental
		organization, so, is unable to make "laws" which require actions
		or payments from entities with no contractual relationship.

Owen