[ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org]
>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:10 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and
>Support/Non-SupportRequested
>
>
>
>According to ARIN staff, current requirements for additional address
>space allocations (according to section 4.2.4 of the NPRM) are:
>
>a) 100% utilization of all previous allocations
>b) 80% utilization of the most recent allocation
>
>Presumably, ARIN staff have mechanisms in place to verify both
>requirements.

Once more, this is merely sidestepping the issue.  I am not arguing
that ARIN doesen't have mechanisms in place to verify both
requirements.  I am telling you point blank that nothing in your
policy requires ARIN to use those mechanisms to -continue
to make sure- that the requestors do what they say they are
promising, after they get their addressing, and you have nothing
in your policy that specifices penalties if they do not live up
to their promises.

You really are sinking your own ship here.  "Presumably?"  In short,
you have the audacity to propose modifying requirements but you
have no understanding of how enforcement relates to those very
requirements your trying to propose?

I don't think I am going to have any success trying to explain this
to you any further.  You need to research lawmaking and policymaking.
At least, read the arguments in the US over the gun control debate
to get some understanding of the problems that happen when people make
laws that are impossible to enforce and put them on the books.

All I'm going to say is that if you ignore the enforcement aspect
you risk creating a policy that is impossible to implement
- and as a result, will not be implemented.  That is what I am saying
your doing here.

David I'm trying to HELP you here.  I LIKE the idea of your policy.
I don't want to see it put in, in it's current form because there
are holes in it large enough to drive a truck through.  One of the
biggest is that a requester merely writes a business plan saying he's
going to need a great gob of addresses in the next year - gets those
addresses - then tosses the business plan in the trash.  Meanwhile
those addresses stagnate unused.  And unless policy is written that
stalemates people from doing this, they are going to do it during the
IPv4 end-game.  Your policy makes people make a bunch of promises
to obtain addressing but it doesen't hold them to those promises.
Well, people have been making promises then breaking them for
the last million or so years so I don't see that IPv4 is any different.
Maybe if you were a woman you might understand that better.

>If they felt additional mechanisms were required to
>meet the increased restrictions the Soft Landing proposal imposed, I
>would have thought they would have told me in their comments to me on
>the previous draft of the policy.  They did not

How do you know?  Did you ask them?  What is preventing you from
doing so now?

Why don't you go ask them right now to look at your policy and tell
you if it was implemented, would they be following up a year later with
the requestors to make sure they had actually carried out the
50% demonstrated requirement in Phase 0 & 1, the demonstrated 75%
requirement in
Phase 2 and the demonstrated 90% requirement in Phase 3.  And if they
were, what would happen if those requirements hadn't been met in that year?

>nor do I feel it is
>appropriate for me to tell ARIN staff how to do their job.
>

Then I would suggest you withdraw the proposal because that is EXACTLY
what anyone does when they write a proposal.

If you do not have the guts to tell someone how to do their job then you
certainly shouldn't be writing policy.

Do you even have anyone working under you at all in your real job?

You might consider that ARIN regards the community as "it's boss" and
people in ARIN have said this on this list before.  Perhaps ARIN feels
it isn't appropriate for them to tell YOU how to do YOUR job - which,
as a member of the community - YOUR job is to tell ARIN what to do!

>> Your proposals drive up the value of IPv4 and thus undercut the
>> financial
>> incentive to return unused IPv4.
>
>Even if there was a financial incentive to return unused IPv4
>addresses (something I think many people would argue)

There is - but as we get closer to IPv4 runout, that incentive is
getting smaller and smaller.  Soon, it will disappear.

>, the fact that
>IPv4 is nearing exhaustion would do this independent of any attempts
>to encourage conservation and promotion of IPv6.
>

That is true - under CURRENT policy.  That has, in fact, already been
discussed
on this list.  You might additionally consider that policymaking should
address this problem.

Ted