[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to some categoryof organization

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On
> Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:16 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to some
> categoryof organization
> 
> 
> I was just reading a legal opinion that RIPE has received related to
> rationing policies for the final IANA allocations to RIRs. There
> was an interesting paragraph there that I believe substantially
> applies in North America, and which is worth thinking about:
> 
>    A shortage of supply is indeed generally recognized as an
>    objective justification for a dominant company to discriminate
>    between its customers. In such cases, which applies to IPv4
>    address space, a dominant firm may e.g. prioritise long-
>    standing customers over new or occasional customers and the
>    Commission (EU) will limit its investigation to verifying that
>    there is a genuine shortage and that the reduction in supplies
>    is not merely a pretext for a downright abusive refusal to supply.
> 
> Obviously, any policy proposed within ARIN would get its own legal
> review and we would see how the specific wording of such a policy
> would be viewed under the specific laws of the USA and Virginia.
> That is not the point.
> 
> The point is that we have a REAL shortage looming of IPv4 addresses
> and that network operators are not yet ready to use IPv6 addresses
> as a substitute. That is a genuine shortage of supply, and I believe
> that it is justification for policies which specifically target
> new entrants. Whether the policies only target smart utility
> networks, or whether they go further and target any new entrants,
> I think that there is sufficient reason to think that such
> policies would pass muster.
> 
> Therefore, I would like to see us discuss this type of policy now,
> while there is still some chance of easing the IPv6 transition,
> if only a little bit.
> 

I don't think that the rationalization given fits the IPv4 run-out issue
well at all; it seems to be geared towards an economic situation where
the resource holder can discriminate in order to maximize their return
in the event of a shortage of that resource.  Since ARIN is not
concerned with maximizing economic return but, instead, stewardship of a
scarce resource, I don't see that giving preference to the existing
membership, or some subset of the existing membership as that
rationalization seems to suggest, is warranted.

Regards,

Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksmith at adhost.com
w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3  08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)