[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

[Martin Hannigan]

----- Original Message -----
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
To: Martin Hannigan <martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs>
Cc: PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation
Incentives
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:39:44 -0400

> In a message written on Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:07:06AM
> > -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: 

[ I dont feel like arguing legal points, nothing personal ]

> > Reclamation is not as simple as it looks. *I don't
> > support Owen's policy*, but I support the intent.
> > Amnesty is a one shot deal, not a stop at the drive
> > through convenience store dropping off a token /20 for a
> > bottle deposit refund every now and then. 
> 
> While Owen's policy has "Reclamation" in the title, it
> doesn't appear to me it actually encourages reclamation
> that much.  Sure, it allows it to happen, but we already
> have an amnesty program that allows it to happen.  Rather,
> it appears to me he has three intents:

His policy is amnesty as well since it uses fees as the
proverbial carrot, IMHO.

> 
> - Entice people into the RIR system by giving them more
> favorable
>   terms.  (Sign an RSA, pay fees.)w

I agree with paying fees. I think the problem is the
penalization. Without an RSA, there are no terms so entering
into one causes a penalty. Softening that penalty doesn't
make it any better, but that takes us back in the lawyer
arguments surrounding property.


> - Turn in your existing bucket of disjoint small netblocks
> for
>   one large, aggregateable netblock.

This is good.


> - Returning address space reduces your fees to provide
> some incentive.

I think this is ineffective.

> So if I have 16 disjoint /24's in the swamp taking up 16
> routing slots I can turn them back in for a /20 and take
> up one routing slot.
> 
> Sure, there's a carrot in there to reclaim space, but I
> can't imagine anyone thinks this will get someone to
> return a /8.


Call that a reality. I would suggest removing anything
associated with the IANA registry from the policy to make it
better.

> 
> Rather than call it the "Legacy Outreach and Partial
> Reclamation" policy I think it might be better termed the
> "Legacy Outreach and Aggregation" policy.


Sounds better.


-M<