[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Chris Grundemann]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 23:57, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that any policy that intentionally favors or disfavors any
>> particular organization or group of organizations is not in the
>> interest of Internet stewardship.
>
> We can't have that, Chris. Just imagine... what if there was a region,
> say the Caribbean, which had to meet different standards than everyone
> else? What if we arbitrarily divided ISPs and non-ISPs and gave them
> different rules, even gave some of them the right to vote and some
> not? What if, and this one's a doozy, what if the fee for an address
> was orders of magnitude different depending on how many addresses you
> held?

Point well made. However, I believe that in the first case, folks from
the Caribbean requested the different standards. If a consortium of
X-Larges (or any other group) brings a proposal to the table to
exclude themselves from a certain block of addresses, then perhaps we
should consider it.

It is very true that ISP vs. non-ISP policy is very different, and
probably needs to be. So let me take the liberty of hindsight and
rephrase: Policy that *intentionally* favors or disfavors any
particular organization or group of organizations without sound
technical justification is not in the interest of Internet
stewardship.

Fees are not a policy matter (and nothing that I can change att) so I
will conveniently skip over that discrepancy. ;)

Finally, the argument that bad decisions should be allowed because
someone else already made bad decisions is not one that I am easily
persuaded by. If there is favoritism in the system, let's work to
address it specifically, rather than introduce new favoratisms
elsewhere.

> No, we can't have favoritism in the process, that would be wrong. So
> let me adjust my unreasonable notion:
>
> Perhaps any registrant requesting 4.10 addresses should first show
> cause why aggressive compression of their existing allocation (via
> NAT, v6-only deployments, etc.) can not be made to supply the needed
> addresses.
>
> Thoughts?

I think that this is a much more reasonable proposal.

~Chris

>
> -Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>




-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org