[ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Owen DeLong]

>
>
>> At 11:59 PM -0500 2/27/08, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> The AC should not be undervalued. Still, I think that the
>>> AC, as a whole, should reconsider putting forth policy.
>>> Bottom up policy shouldn't come from the middle.
>>
>> As long as independent proposals get a fair shake, I
>> see no reason for the AC not to put forth proposals.
>
> [ clip ]
>
> Hi John!
>
> It may appear that a policy isn't going to get a fair shake
> since the AC may be viewed as having rubber stamped it. I
> don't believe that our current AC would do that, but I think
> appearance matters.

Marty,

I don't think this is a risk with this policy.

First, there are enough AC members who have publicly
described reservations, concerns, and, in some cases
outright opposition to the proposal that I can't see this
looking like a rubber stamp, even IF it gets adopted.

Second, when the AC passes a proposal along to the BoT,
we do so with a roll call vote.  I think that a unanimous vote
in favor of this proposal from the AC is highly unlikely.

Third, if the BoT perceives a rubber stamp from the AC
contrary to the will of the community, the BoT would
certainly exercise their authority to remand the proposal
as having failed to follow the IRPEP. The two proposals
which were remanded after the ABQ meeting show that
the board has no hesitation to question AC decisions
where they feel appropriate.

For my part, the current draft of the proposal represents
a good starting point for the AC to discuss the issue with
the community.  I remain greatly conflicted about the idea
of a market for the transfer of IPv4 address space.  If you
had asked me about such a proposal up until a year ago,
I would have stated outright opposition. Today, looking
at the other forces likely to be at work after IANA free
pool exhaustion, I'm not so sure it is a bad idea. I'm also
not at all sure it's a good idea. The only thing I am sure
of is that this question needs a great deal of discussion
in the community prior to making a decision to move
forward with such a major change in policy. Further,
I'm sure that if we are to have that discussion, it is very
urgent we start the discussion immediately. I believe
that the AC drafted this proposal as a mechanism to
facilitate that discussion in the community and that it
represents exactly that.  An opportunity to discuss
the issue.

I cannot speak for the entire AC, but, certainly my intent
in participating in the development process on this proposal
was to get the issue before the community and gather
feedback for the AC. I am, at this time, neither recommending
nor opposing this proposal as I feel I simply don't have
enough data to make an informed decision on the issue.

As a member of the community, if I had to vote today, I'd
vote no. Not because I think the proposal is a bad idea,
but, because I am not sufficiently convinced that it is a
good idea.

I do not believe it would be appropriate for the chair to
be the author of this proposal. The entire AC has put
considerable effort into developing and refining this
proposal, and, we continue to discuss and debate it
both here and amongst the AC as authors.  Having the
chair listed as the author would obscure that process
from the public view and would be, in my opinion,
contrary to the spirit of openness that is key to our
policy development process.

Owen