[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Joe Maimon]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> If you are worried about vast tracts of IPs ripe for the plucking,
>> then let's write policy to find and recover those tracts - Or at least
>> to stop Orgs with those unused/underused resources from getting more.
>> Size, type, industry are not the issues here; efficient utilization
>> is.
>
> Find and recover is a non-starter because it costs too much money
> for ARIN to do this kind of detailed audit.
>
> Efficient utilization is unknown without audits.
>
> Therefore, make the set-aside policy only available for orgs whose
> address allocations are less than a certain threshold.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> P.S. Fairness is irrelevant. Any set aside policy is unfair. Doing nothing is unfair.
> Life is unfair. We aren't here to change the world, just to reduce the chaos and
> disorder of the IPv6 transition.
>
> Period.
>


On these and on other points I find myself in agreement with Bill and 
Michael, reminding me of why I chose this size related viewpoint as an 
explicit portion of abandoned policy proposal 110, which I remain 
partial to.

The maximum resources available to any sized organization under any set 
aside policy is quite relevant. It is possible to make large enough 
resources available so that even the larger organizations cannot match 
it through increased internal efficiencies. Blatant exclusivity would 
then be unnecessarily unfair.

I am in favor of any set aside policy that expands 4.10, as it has a 
similar effect as abandoned policy proposal 112, details regardless.

I tend toward neutrality or disfavor for any policy that nitpicks 4.10 
without expansion.

I am in favor of maximum allocation limits and I am in favor of 
structuring a set aside policy so that those who can easily come up with 
the same resources available under the policy will either tend not to 
apply or will be specifically excluded.

Without a fairly strict maximum limit on allocation size, I would 
advocate that increasingly larger allocations require an increasingly 
larger burden of proof on the actual unavailability of equivalent 
resources from any other internal mechanism. This is likely to be overly 
burdensome and subjective to both the requester and to ARIN

I therefore consider relatively small maximum allocation limits along 
with either explicit or implicit restrictions based on the size of 
current holdings to be the superior approach.

I feel very uncomfortable with increasing nitpicks and dictates as to 
what uses are appropriate and which are not for resources. The deeper we 
embroil ourselves there the deeper my discomfort. Creating process for 
ongoing nitpicking would be an interesting exercise, but still the wrong 
idea, and I would not support that.

Further, I do not support restricting set aside policy to transition 
mechanisms alone. Transition space is all well and good if that is what 
everyone is doing and where the needs actually are, in which case that 
is what set aside resources will be used for, naturally, without 
burdensome and process heavy explicit restrictions.

However, it would be quite unfortunate if organizations who can realize 
economy of scale from efficiency improvements and can utilize market 
clout continue with business as usual while everyone else goes into 
decline and gets the shaft.

These and similarly bleak scenarios are certainly possible and we cannot 
give odds good enough against their unfolding so as to blithely ignore them.

Making resources available solely for transitioning to IPv6 even if 
doing so does not put bread on the table for the hoi polloi brings to my 
mind an uncomfortable potential for resemblance to a well known if 
historically vague phrase.

"Let them use IPv6" must not be our epitaph.


Joe