[arin-ppml] incentives are better than penalties

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Sun Aug 1 04:23:26 EDT 2010

On 7/31/2010 4:51 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2010, at 7:22 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>> I am opposed to reclamation techniques that step up the
>> confrontational and adversarial relationship between ARIN and
>> address holders, even were it to be essential for continued
>> consumption of IPv4 and IPv6 did not exist. I view increasing
>> auditing and mandatory triggers of audits with similar concern.
>> Expending good will and buy in, not to mention financial resources,
>> all for relatively limited return along with greater risks of legal
>> and political liabilities is not a good bargain.
>> Bad cop is not a character role an organization like ARIN should
>> choose to be identified with.
>> Incentives for efficiencies, that is where my support lands. Even
>> then,  I prefer less direct incentives, those that can be spread
>> and carried by the invisible hand.
> Amen.
> As ARIN participants we all represent two perspectives that may be at
> odds: the success of our organizations, and the ongoing function of
> the Internet.  The best way to achieve goals associated with the
> latter, is to create policy that simultaneously encourages the
> former.
> More specifically, we must recognize that the audit and renumbering
> of existing IP allocations consumes resources.  Few member
> organizations are motivated to spend money on returning address
> space, because there is no ROI.  Creating policy that artificially
> penalizes organizations for the status quo (i.e. "stick") will only
> encourage the minimal response to avoid trouble, and may encourage
> deceit.  On the other hand, policy that motivates efficiency (i.e.
> "carrot") by assigning real value to number resources will encourage
> cooperation and inherently encourages organizations to make excess
> resources available.  A secondary benefit is that the differential in
> cost of plentiful IPv6 and scarce IPv4 will encourage faster take-up
> of IPv6.

I personally think that you are getting lost in the kumbayas here.

Claims that the RIR's can always peacefully coexist with all IP number 
consuming orgs are nonsense.  No matter how ARIN is structured
and no matter what policy it uses there are going to be orgs out there 
that have a problem with something that they are doing.  There are
people who would complain about paradise, so please let's not
have anymore of this naivete.

The question on the table isn't whether the RIR needs to be a good
cop, period.  The question on the table is whether the RIR needs to
"encourage organizations to make excess resources available" by
"assigning a real value" to numbering resources, ie: the "carrot"

The problem with this idea is that it presumes that no carrot
currently exists for orgs to "motivate efficiency" so the RIR's
have to provide one.  You said it yourself, orgs don't spend
money on housekeeping to return addresses because there's no

However this is false.  After IPv4 runout, orgs will have plenty
of efficiency motivation since that's the only way to self-generate
IPv4 demands.  Orgs will do this for their own needs, they won't
do it for other org's needs.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list