[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

[Owen DeLong]

>>
>> There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what would  
>> probably
>> be considered the opposite viewpoint in another message, I quote:
>>
>>    I believe that the system will function and that there is no need
>>    to  do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill  
>> requests.
>>    At that time,  ARIN should fulfill request it can on a
>>    first-come-first-serve basis and provide  a polite apology in
>>    response to requests which cannot be fulfilled.  I do not  believe
>>    a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this.
>>
>
> This is not an alternative.  Doing nothing about a problem is not an
> alternative, it is status quo, and it certainly invites government
> interference and involvement.

I believe by alternative, Leo was referring to options other than the
one presented.  Continuing as I stated certainly is an option, and,
frankly, I don't think it invites regulation to any degree greater than
what you are advocating.  In fact, there wouldn't really be much left
to regulate by the time the regulators did anything.  OTOH, with the
artificial reserve and EOL proposal on the table, there'd be some
stuff left for them to think they could gain control over.

>> Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you to
>> consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's  
>> thread,
>> along with why I think most are not:
>>
>> - Reclamation of unused address space.  It doesn't matter if we do  
>> this
>>  or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space.
>
> This is an extreme simplification that is essentically incorrect.  If
> relamation were to exceed everyone's estimates then it might push the
> runout date so far in advance that it would become theoretical.  I
> agee the chances of this are small but the are not nonexistent - so
> in fact, reclamation does have a place in the discussion.
>
And, if the aerodynamic coefficient of monkeys could be modified
sufficiently, then, they could fly, perhaps even out of my butt.  Get
real.  The odds of any reclamation effort succeeding to such an
extent are so close to zero as to not even be good theory.

>> - Are the predictions of when we run out correct?  Same problem,  
>> doesn't
>>  matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do  
>> when
>>  it happens.
>>
>
> If it is 2050 then we are setting policy prematurely if the policy is
> not going to come into effect for another 43 years.  You and I will
> certainly both be retired, very likely both dead of old age.  We do  
> not
> have the moral right to dictate policy to our children for a
> community problem that will arise after we are dead of old age.
> We only have the right to set policy that we are going to live by.
> I also have the same objection to the continual
> immoral lengthing of copyright terms, by the way.
>
Wrong again.  We have the right and, indeed, the obligation to
set appropriate policy for likely circumstances now.  No matter
what policy we set now, it will likely be changed by our children
and perhaps their children between now and 2050, so, this is no
reason to avoid setting policy now.

> You might as well write policy now for the runout of IPv6.
>
Personally, I think it should be the same as the current policy  
regarding
the runout of IPv4 (which I also think is perfectly fine), so, I have no
problem with that.

Owen