[arin-ppml] 2008-3 Support

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sep 17, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> The problem that we are beating around the bush here is a fairly  
> common one (but no less difficult) in resource allocation.
>
> Joshua is pleading a set of special circumstances that, he believes,  
> warrant a special exception to normal ARIN v6 allocation policies.  
> This kind of a claim can either be based on a particular status of  
> the organization (e.g., nonprofit, community organization, etc.) or  
> on the special and meritorious use to which the allocation would be  
> put (e.g., the ability of local organizations to experiment,  
> innovate, etc.)
>
> This is what we call “merit” allocation. That is, allocations are  
> based not on some (allegedly) objective standard of “need” nor on  
> the ability to pay the regular fees, but on the perceived social  
> merit of the claim. Others call it a beauty contest - but in this  
> case there is not really a “contest” in that his group is not asking  
> for one of a fixed number of slots, as happens, e.g., with broadcast  
> licensing. So maybe we should call it a “beauty pageant.”
>
> I strongly believe that ARIN’s v6 allocation policies should be  
> flexible and open enough to allow organizations like Joshua’s to  
> qualify for a v6 application – simply because they want one, not  
> because they “need” one according to some v4-world definition of  
> “need.” I would be very concerned, however, about the prospect of  
> complicating v6 allocation policies with a welter of special  
> policies around specific merit claims. This would involve creating  
> complex and always game-able classifications of organizations and  
> uses. If we do this, I suspect, we will discover long term that for  
> every sincere and worthy applicant like Joshua, there will be one or  
> two entities who exploit that process in various ways to gain an  
> unfair advantage over the other slogs who follow the normal rules.  
> And the ability to discriminate between the gamers and the sincere- 
> worthies will impose significant overhead on the RIRs.
>
> Here’s how I conceive of the choice. We can 1) try to forge a  
> general policy governing merit claims, by creating an elaborate set  
> of organizational status classifications and merit assignment  
> criteria; or 2) establish a uniform but liberal set of rules  
> governing access, charge appropriate fees to deter inefficient or  
> wasteful use, and let merit claimants seek funding support from  
> foundations, the government, their members, industry, etc. when they  
> are unable to afford those fees. That is, the assessment of merit  
> claims should be delegated to funders (who are more in the business  
> of evaluating the merit of applicants) and not hardwired into (or  
> carved out of) allocation policy.



I would fully support approach number 2.


Best Regards,

-M<