[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[David Conrad]

Jordi,

On May 11, 2007, at 3:29 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I will say that the community will benefit from the implementation  
> of this
> policy, and we want to avoid increasing the "cost" on getting IPv4  
> address
> space from the RIR,

You're missing the point, I suspect.  The whole concept behind this  
policy is to raise the "cost" of obtaining IPv4 space to both  
decrease IPv4 demand via conservation and increased address space  
efficiency as well as increase the incentive to migrate to IPv6 by  
(eventually) making getting IPv4 space contingent on demonstrating  
IPv6 services and connectivity.  The cost can either be in  
administrative burden needed to justify additional address space or  
in actual direct (e.g., higher fees) or indirect (e.g., cost of a 3rd  
party audit) monetary cost.  I have avoided the direct cost approach  
as it gets out of policy and into ARIN operational considerations,  
leaving increased administrative burden and indirect costs.

> in such way that the members have less motivation to go
> for addresses to the secondary market.

I am assuming people are going to go to the "secondary market"  
regardless of what the RIRs do.

> So I see reasons for ARIN paying that cost.

In the end, the requester is going to pay for the 3rd party audit on  
way or the other, either directly buy paying for it themselves, or by  
funding it through membership fees (which may need to increase to  
cover the costs of the audits).

My suspicion is that having the requester pay for the audit will be  
the simplest.

> I guess it will be much better to have that defined in the policy.

OK.  I'd still like to see others' opinions on any one or all of:

- whether paying for the audit should be defined in the policy
- whether the audit should be paid for by ARIN or the requester
- whether there should even be the requirement for the 3rd party audit

Thanks,
-drc