[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 110: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition

[David Farmer]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> Policy Proposal: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for 
>> New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition
> 
> I am opposed to creating or enabling ghettoes for those who
> don't fully understand what they are getting themselves into.
> 
> Any small or new organization can always get access to the 
> IPv4 Internet either by buying an IPv4 Internet service or
> by buying an IPv6 Internet service from an ISP who operates
> a good set of proxy services.
> 
> When IPv4 resources get scarce, helping small groups throw
> good money after bad, is not a nice thing to do. Far better
> to practice tough love and point out that the cupboard is
> bare, but the IPv6 soup kitchen down the street serves
> tasty and nutritious meals that will keep them alive and
> help them thrive in the future.
>
> --Michael Dillon

My initial reaction to this proposal was similar to Micheal's.

However, taking a little closer look, if you eliminated the following 
two sections most of the rest of the proposal I believe is within the 
original intent of 2008-5.

4.10.5.1 New Entrants Pool

4.10.5.2 Small Organization Growth Pool

While I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I believe I would need 
to see overwhelming support from most of the community, in order to even 
think about creating these two additional pools.

To review 2008-5, see the following;

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

Eliminating those two sections, probably changing the title, and maybe 
some other minor edits, I believe would mostly eliminate my personal 
objections to this proposal.

That would leave this proposal with what looks to me, like a good start 
at some well needed additional guidance for ARIN staff in doling out the 
/10 that has been reserved for IPv6 transition by 2008-5.  Including 
what looks like some reasonable additional protections to prevent abuse 
of this pool and preserve it for its intended purpose.

So, if this were limited to providing additional guidance for the IPv6 
transition pool already reserved, I think this could be a useful policy.

But, if you think those two pools are a good idea please let me and the 
rest of AC know that.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================