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

[Scott Beuker]

Hi Marla,

First off, I am opposed to 2009-1 because I'm opposed to any transfer policy that would allow resources, acquired from ARIN with justification for use, to be sold in a manner that clearly demonstrates the justification was false. I understand the desire to motivate people to free up IPs, but I can't support a policy that also encourages pre-exhaustion hoarding.

Furthermore, before I would support it I would require such a policy to mandate that a period of at least 3 years (the longer, the better) had passed since the organization passing on the space had received its last assignment. The intent of this is clearly to limit the benefit of hoarding between now and exhaustion for monetary gain. 

[QUOTE]
New Definition "Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal entities under common control or ownership."
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.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think this con can be under stated. If existing organizations aren't grandfathered, it would be throwing a grenade at the routing table.

If a company has separate business and residential units, each with their own blocks of IP space on separated networks, a need for space in one unit will pretty much force them to start fracturing the remaining space for the other unit. Breaking it out like this will often mean many more and smaller advertised blocks in the DFZ. Separate organizations like this get into different application cycles (particularly with 12 month allocations), and so through no fault of the companies one unit will hit a point of justified need before the other.

Furthermore, it probably represents a legal quagmire of some kind to deny one business space due to another business, with such a vague and hard to demonstrate definition of "common control or ownership". In hindsight it would have been great if this were implemented years ago, but at this point it's too little too late and best left alone IMO.

Thanks,
Scott Beuker