[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (UsingtheEmergency PDP)

Bill Darte BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Sat Mar 28 08:14:37 EDT 2009


Milton,

I'm unsure what you are retracting...
But, you believe that scarcity exists now?  Rationing has existed for many years.  The 'talk' of rationing smaller parcels than meets need is triggered when ARIN's reserve drops below a /9 in policy proposal 2009-2.  That is not nearly the case.

bd


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Sat 3/28/2009 1:14 AM
To: Bill Darte; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (UsingtheEmergency	PDP)
 
OK, I need to retract a bit of my previous message re: 2008-6. 

As amended, 2008-6 was not bad. But, having looked over the long-term record of this process, if I were to attribute a reason to the Board's (admittedly poorly explained) action, it would be this:

> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of Bill Darte
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:21 PM
>
> 3. The implementation timetable deferred the implementation until such a
> time as there was indeed real scarity.

This was the fatal flaw in 2008-6. Scarcity is here now, especially when there is talk of rationing out the remaining v4 blocks in small parcels in ways that constrain large operators in order to equalize their ration with small operators (i.e., 2009-2). If I were a big operator looking ahead for the next 2-3 years, and worried about my ability to acquire the v4 addresses needed to remain competitive, the combination of 2008-6 (which doesn't allow transfers at all until the exhaustion of the free pool), and the rationing approach of 2009-2, I would be concerned. 

I don't think the sunset is the issue, I think it's the start date. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090328/d3e26d01/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list