[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Ray Plzak]

drc - are you concerned about auditor certification?

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> David Conrad
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:03 PM
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml