[arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1 review

[Azinger, Marla]

I've waited for calmer waters to discuss the merits of this proposal in hopes that others can do the same and not get lost in the sea of procedural commentary.   Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I came up with and I would like to hear what other pro's, con's, solutions and opinions the rest of the community has.  While I am grateful for those who have already posted their opinions to ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks that have not yet posted to ppml on this subject.

Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and resume original policy.
Con: A hard date could be totally the wrong date.
Con: Results may show evidence that keeping the transfer policy as permanent policy is better for the ARIN than reverting back to original policy.
Alternate solution:  It might be better to write in a clause the requires review and analysis of the state of address space availability every year.  If there proves to be zero difficulty fulfilling IP requests for a period of one year then revert back to original policy and deactivate this policy.
My opinion: Its cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or anything of its kind.  If in the future we enter into free flowing address space again, we can always enact the policy process to revert back to the original transfer policy.  Either way its not a show stopper but going without it seems to me to be the best way.


Implementation Date Now and no wait time
Pro: Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black Market which is currently active and growing.
Pro: Immediate implementation would help preserve WHOIS data.
Con: The free world of addressing as we currently know it comes to an end.
Alternate solution: Wait till the address availability has reached a choking point.
My opinion: It sucks to see there is no escape from supply and demand.  The former utopian addressing world was great but the fact is when the quantity of anything becomes limited, people no longer freely share or give but require some form of monetary return.   We can't escape the fundamentals of supply and demand and I believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much as possible is more important than clinging to the past and in that time frame watching the black market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and record of authoritative source decline.  We already need to improve in those areas and this isn't a jab to start that discussion on ppml right now, but it would be best to in the least take action that stops it from getting any worse while at the same time ensuring conservation/proper usage.


New Definition "Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal entities under common control or ownership."
Pro: This will force organizations into proper management of IP addresses.
Pro: This could cut down on waste from large organizations that are segmented.
Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of address space on a higher level.  Currently one organization can own three or more companies that up until now have operated separately when it came to address management.  With this additional definition Company A could have allot of address space that effectively stops Company B from getting more address space because per the new definition the addresses would need to be shared among the whole Organization not individually by Company as in the past.  This would force address management up to the organizational level.
Alternate solution: Grandfather existing organizations.
My opinion: While this may be difficult to swallow for some organizations I believe its the most accurate and efficient way to manage address space.  It may also serve as an indirect push towards the adoption of IPv6.
Clarification needed on what this policy specifically is applied to (v4, v6 both?)
New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for IPv4 only.  I think it needs to be clear what this policy will be applied to as it makes sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a supply and demand situation.

In Summary:
As I went through this I was surprised to find that I actually think the changes made are appropriate.  I don't think the sunset clause is a functioning tool.  I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to waiting and the new definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to address conservation and management.


Those are my 2 cents.  I hope to hear from the other community members that have not yet posted thoughts about the policy text itself.

Cheers
Marla Azinger

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/f169746d/attachment.htm>