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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Marla,
 
  The fact of the matter is that this isn't about the merits of 2009-1
anymore.  It is about whether or
not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and de-polarize this
issue.
 
  If 2009-1 is put in place against opposition, then it will be subject to
constant additional
future policy proposals to strip it out, and it will require further
opposition against the majority to
keep it in the policies, which will just widen the breach of trust.
Eventually it will go or the
Board will go and then it will go after that - but by then the atmosphere
will be so poisoned
that we will be hamstrung with dealing with this IPv6 transition at a
critical time.
 
  There is still time now for the Board to apologize and atone for it's
mistake.  Atonement is
simple, either withdraw it and all proposals associated and wait for a new,
fresh set of proposals
during the next round, or, restore the sunset clause.
 
  Seriously, this really, really, really isn't about the merits of this
proposal anymore.  It
is an issue of trust - the Board broke it, and the cooler heads out here are
all sitting here
scratching our heads as to why the Board simply doesn't acknowledge they
screwed up
and take the extremely simple action, EASILY reversible by policy later, of
just restoring
the sunset clause.
 
Ted
 



  _____  

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Azinger, Marla
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:41 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1 review



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/fb244ef8/attachment.htm>