[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-16 - Staff Assessment

[David Conrad]

Hi,

Responding to staff assessment comments:

On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Member Services wrote:
> 1.  The policy seems to apply only to the general IPv4 ISP policy.  
> Does
> this policy also apply to the other ISP additional policies like
> multiple discreet networks (NRPM 4.5) and cable (NRPM 4.2.6)?

The goal of the policy is to promote increased efficiency and  
encourage transition any time any ISP requests additional address  
space.  For simplicity, fairness, and consistency's sake, I believe  
it inappropriate to create loopholes based on a particular access  
technology or how an organization decides to partition their  
network.  As such, the utilization requirements in section 4.2.6  
(second bullet) and section 4.5.5 should be modified to correspond  
with the utilization based on thresholds as defined in the proposal.

> 2.  Does this policy supersede the ISP additional request policy  
> and any
> other ISP additional request policies? If so, this should be  
> clearly stated.

Yes.

> 3.  In the policy statement, the author discusses utilization rates  
> and
> refers to swip and rwhois.  These terms should be removed because they
> are not necessarily relevant to all customers (those that assign  
> smaller
> than /28s or orgs that manage dynamic address pools, Voip, etc…).

I referenced SWIP and rwhois because the NPRM as it exists references  
SWIP and rwhois.  I'm happy to remove those references.

> 4.  In the policy statement, the author refers to specific fields  
> in the
> template.  This should be removed since template fields will change  
> over
> time.

OK.

> 5.  A general question of fairness comes up when you consider that  
> ISP’s
> will now be faced with much more difficulty in obtaining IP address
> space from ARIN while end users will feel no effect or change at all.

As mentioned in previous discussions on this proposal, due to limited  
time I focused on the consumers of the vast majority of address  
space.  If the community feels it appropriate, I am happy to create a  
separate proposal that focuses on end users.

> 6. Author indicated placement in the NRPM. All the text from "begin
> modification" to "end modification" would be placed in Section  
> 4.2.4.1.
> Subsections would be created. The title of the section would be  
> changed
> to "Utilization Requirements". We would strike the "80%" reference in
> 4.2.3.4.1.

OK.

Regards,
-drc