[ppml] Policy Proposals 2007-18 and -23

[briand at ca.afilias.info]

Here is the jist of the modification to the proposal, which is basically
clock-based (run-rate based):

Immediately prior to the assignments for N=1, have a policy which will be
triggered by a current consensus estimate among the RIRs that the
*slowest* RIR run rate will use up one /8 before IANA Address Depletion,
the remaining space is divided based on the projected usage between that
time and IAD.

(For absolute fairness, allow any RIR to hit the "panic button", with the
caveat that if the slowest-growing RIR hits the panic button, that RIR would
only get their one last /8.)

One /8 is subtracted from this value, to be given out per -23.
The remainder is allocated in as aggregatable a fashion, but with a
granularity of /12, and given to the RIRs based on projected use.

This distribution will leave one /8 per RIR, which will trigger 2007-23.

And, combined with 2007-23, this policy will result in near simultaneous
RIR exhaustion dates for all RIRs.

For example (and example only):
Imagine 5 RIRs, A, B, C, D, E.
Imagine in this scenario, that IAD is 1.5 years away.
Run rates are:
A = 5 /8's per year
B = 3 /8's per year
C = 2 /8's per year
D = 1 /8's per year
E = 1 /8 per 1.5 years.

Assume some non-linear aspect to run rates.
Assume that based on current projections, the last 1.5 years will result in
usage for RIRs of, respectively:
A = 9.5 /8's
B = 5.25 /8's
C = 2.75 /8's
D = 1.5 /8's
E = 1.0 /8's

And (in order to have this use up all the space), there are 18 /8's left.

This policy would, at the moment in time that the slowest RIR needs exactly
one /8, assign X-1 /8's or parts thereof, to each RIR.

In this example, that would be:
A = 8 /8's and 1 /9
B = 4 /8's and 1 /10
C = 1 /8's, 1 /9, and 1 /10
D = 1 /9
E = (nothing, because current estimate is 1 /8 *)

(* - if at the time the decision is taken to implement the final
assignments, the smallest RIR has more than one /8 estimated use, they
would get that portion above the one /8, rather than nothing.)

And then immediately, each of A, B, C, D, and E, get the last /8 each,
exactly the way 2007-23 proposes.

This would result in achieving the balance of 2007-23, and also being
fair based on run rate. Everyone would have the same amount of time,
and more than one /8 left with which to enact respective "final /8"
policies.

Apologies if this isn't totally clear; please ask for details on any
aspect of this if you don't understand what is being proposed.

It is basically, split the last of the pie fairly, when the smallest piece
is big enough to "eat".

Brian Dickson