[arin-ppml] Draft Policy2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)

[Joe Maimon]

Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
> 
>> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> I have two significant issues with people who are completely opposed to
>> a transfer policy:
>>
> Those of us who are diametrically opposed to a transfer policy have that
> position because it is just a bad idea. 


This issue is much simpler than some would make it appear.

A) Easily available green-field IPv4 will run out.

B) People most likely are still going to demand IPv4.

C) There is plenty of available IPv4 DEPENDING where you look for it and 
how hard you do so.

We can either be part of the problem or part of the solution.

The solution is to create a workable process that will revisit the 
inefficiencies of the past.

The problem would be to prevent the inefficiencies of the past to be 
rectified.

Should the latter position be taken, our processes and institutions risk 
becoming irrelevant, by force majeure, by popular action or by fait 
accompli.

As things stand, I fear that the registries and their communities will 
be called upon to explain in the near future to all and sundry these 
difficult to defend issues.

- Inefficiencies and lack of incentive to remedy
- Legacy space
- Past and present liberal allocation policies
- Rationing
- obsolete IANA reservations

Most of us doubt that anybody is going to accept the answer of

"Get lost or get IPv6"

We can evidence from the recent posting of the CNN article with the 
pro-market solution that mainstreaming of the issue has already begun.

Joe