[arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, can you please help?

[Jeremy H.Griffith]

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:04:58 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>>>
>>> * IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>>> * Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where  
>>> X is
>>> reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year  
>>> 3000.
>>
>> +1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:
>>
>While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
>I think that 2010 would be far too early.  IANA runout will probably  
>occur
>somewhere in 2010-2011.  I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
>this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful.  Would you
>accept a 12/31/2013 date?

I think sooner is better.  One major benefit of the sunset clause
is that it puts a limit on speculation.  If someone "acquires" many
blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know
that their inventory will shortly become unsalable.  That should
put a damper on price gouging.  It also protects ARIN against any
later lawsuits by people who had such inventory when it became of
no value.  If there were no sunset, they could claim that a reversal
of the policy was a "taking", and effectively keep it in place
forever by threatening to bankrupt ARIN if it changed.  I don't
want the community held hostage that way.  So the more we can put
an upfront limit on the duration of this policy, the better off
we are.

That said, how about setting it to *begin* at ARIN runout, and
*end* one year later?  That gives people a buffer, while making
clear that the real answer lies elsewhere (IPv6), and discouraging
speculators from entering a "market" that won't be there long.

>Thanks for your comments.

Thanks for yours!

--JHG <jhg at omsys.com>