[arin-ppml] Is Emergency action warranted for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?

[Scott Leibrand]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Effectively, this proposal seeks to guarantee access to IPv4 resources for a
> reasonably short period of time. It will enable critical infrastructure "CI"
> to be able to receive a small amount of IPv4 addresses so that they can
> provide a full and robust service to the Internet. The reason why we
> shouldn't (as Scott Liebrand has and continues to advocate) simply push
> these needs to "markets" is because these entities have little choice but to
> serve two internets for some time and it is unreasonable to challenge new
> entities building CI with the massively increased cost in order to be able
> to do so. The benefits of new CI, such as TLD's, outweigh the benefit of not
> carving out a small chunk of address space.

I am sympathetic to this perspective, and voted to accept policy
proposal 123 onto the AC's docket.  I believe it is worthy of
discussion at the April Public Policy Meeting, and if after the
discussion there the community feels that the benefits of new CI
networks are a benefit to the entire community, then I believe this
policy proposal is worth approving on that basis.

If, however, the benefit would primarily accrue directly to the
organizations receiving the space, and not to the community as a
whole, then I would argue that such organizations, given the small
amount of IPv4 space needed, are in a better position than other IPv4
users to acquire that space directly, without special policy
treatment.  (IOW, the costs would be a lot less massive for a CI
provider needing a /24 than for a new ISP needing a /16.)

-Scott

P.S. My last name is spelled Leibrand, and pronounced Lye-brand.  (It's German.)