[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

[Owen DeLong]

Sorry for multiple posts on this, but Leo raises some new questions
and I would like to address those.  I'll try not to repeat my previous
comments.

On Jun 28, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:34:02AM -0700, Owen  
> DeLong wrote:
>> 			1.	If the organization does not currently pay ARIN
>> 				fees, they shall remain fee exempt.
>
> I'm not strongly opposed to this point, however I question it's
> value.  ARIN implemented a $100 maintenance fee I believe largely
> as a yearly "touch point" after previous expereince with no-fee
> resources lead to many out of date records.  I'm totally down with
> waving initial fees and maybe even a year or two, but I can't imagine
> $100 going forward makes a big difference to anyone.
>
Yes, however, faced with the choice between return some address space
and pay $100/year and keep your address space and continue to pay
nothing, which would you choose?

Which do you think most people would choose?

>> 			2.	If the organization currently pays ARIN fees,
>> 				their fees shall be waived for two years for
>> 				each /20 equivalent returned, with any fractional /20
>> 				equivalent resulting in a one-time single year waiver.
>
> I'd roll #1 and #2 into "Pays no fees for two years."  Short, simple.
> Again though, not enough to make me not support the proposal.
>
See justification for number 1 as to why this isn't a good idea.

Further, I wanted to create some incentive to return as much space as
possible, hence two years per /20 equivalent.

>> 			3.	Any organization returning address space under
>> 				this policy shall continue under their existing
>> 				RSA or they may choose to sign the current RSA.
>> 				For organizations which currently do not
>> 				have an RSA, they may sign the current RSA, or,
>> 				they may choose to remain without an RSA.
>
> I strongly object to giving out any new resource that is not covered
> by an RSA.  That's a deal breaker for me.
>
This isn't giving any new resources out.  It's allowing them to return
space without penalty.  My intent here isn't to give away
the store, it's to remove as many barriers to address return as possible
while still providing some incentives to join into the ARIN process.

In like 99% of these cases, the space retained would be an existing
prefix or a fraction of an existing prefix.  In those 1% cases where we
hand out, say a new /20 in trade for a 50 or 60 discreet class C's, I
think I'd rather have one /20 out there without an RSA and reclaim
the 50 or 60 class C's than keep the existing 50 or 60 class C's out
there without an RSA.  If you think this through, I suspect you would,
too.  This policy does not in any way provide for someone to get
more space than they already have or expand their current
space without returning at least as much as they are receiving.

>> 			4.	All organizations returning space under this
>> 				policy shall, if they meet other eligibility
>> 				requirements and so request, obtain an
>> 				appropriate IPv6 end-user assignment
>> 				or ISP allocation as applicable, with no fees
>> 				for the first 5 years.  Organizations electing
>> 				to receive IPv6 allocation/assignment under
>> 				this provision must sign a current RSA and
>> 				must agree that all of their IPv4 resources are
>> 				henceforth subject to the RSA. Organizations
>> 				taking this election shall be subject to end-user
>> 				fees for their IPv4 resources not previously
>> 				under an ARIN RSA.  If they are already an
>> 				ARIN subscriber, then IPv4 resources
>> 				affected by this process may, instead,  be added to
>> 				their existing subscriber agreement at the
>> 				address holder's discretion.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> I really like the concept here of finding a way to provide an
> incentive to turn in old space for newer, more aggregateable, more
> usable (IPv6) going forward.  However I feel very strongly we need
> RSA's in place for new resources, the lack of one was a major
> mistaken in the past we can't repeat.
>
While I agree, I don't see this as repeating that mistake so much
as providing a way to narrow the scope of the existing mistake
while not penalizing people for doing the right thing.  I tried
very hard to make this policy something that gains ground from
where we are now while removing as many barriers to progress
for legacy holders as I could.  Note that to get IPv6 space for
free, they have to move their IPv4 resources all under current RSA.
If they just want to return IPv4 resources and don't want to sign
an RSA for the ones they keep, I really don't see how that
is an any way not better than forcing them to keep all their
existing IPv4 resources to avoid signing the RSA.


Owen