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

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

If you are going to quote Matthew Kaufman [matthew at matthew.at]
then please put his name at the top, not mine.

> > 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.  I 
> have gone on at length as to why it is a bad idea, and see no 
> need to do so again.

I happen to agree that all transfer policies are just plain
bad ideas, unneccesary, a waste of time, and so on. Part of 
my reasoning is that transfer policies will hurt small businesses
and only benefit large businesses or at most, a select few wealthy small
businesses. This rather conflicts with ARIN's recent policies for
various soft-landing tactics which all benefit small businesses as a
category at the expense of large businesses like my employer.

Of course, my employer benefits from a scenario in which those small
businesses can buy our services, and in various other ways due to the
network effect. So in reality, I'm just taking the longer view that
if someone has to take the hit, we can take it and survive because we,
and other large network operators, have already got enough IPv6 testing
and deployment done to know that we can make a business of it when the
day comes. We'd rather see this IPv4 shortage be as short as possible
and are taking action to make it so by gearing up for IPv6. Early trials
are very promising.

--Michael Dillon