[arin-ppml] Petitioning the abandonment of Policy Proposals 110 and 112

[Joe Maimon]

All,

I have chosen to petition the AC's abandonment of policy proposals 110 
and 112, each with its own post accompanying this one.

I believe that there is just enough time to do something of value for 
unallocated IPv4 address space, with this PDP cycle possibly the last 
good opportunity to do so.

I believe it to be rational and reasonable to set aside address space if 
the potential for urgent need for it at a later date exists.

I believe that potential exists.

I do not consider it wise to allow the last of the unallocated space to 
be run through at nearly the same rate of consumption that consumed the 
vast majority of the previously available resources.

I believe it strategic and important to demonstrate prudence and far 
sightedness in this manner, that the potential payoff far exceeds the 
immediate cost.

Policy Proposal 110 is my view of what best should be done along this 
vein. I have also offered up Policy Proposal 112 as a complimentary 
alternative that allows the community to simply decide not to run 
through the last of the free pool resources immediately.

The AC has decided they do not support the objectives and goals of the 
proposals. They have also decided that there is little to none in the 
way of community support either for the proposals on their merits or for 
continuing discussion and consideration of them.

There have been and continue to be proposals and draft policies that 
achieve similar end results, partially or wholly, namely, that small 
resource holders may continue to receive unallocated resources from ARIN 
while larger ones cannot.

Many of those have received considerable discussion and/or support and 
some have even been adopted.

However, none are as deterministic, complete, structured and explicit in 
accomplishing these goals as PP#110, which I initially wrote in May 09.

While I respect the work, opinions and intentions of the AC and its 
members, I believe it is prudent to appeal to the community and offer 
them this opportunity to voice support for continued discussion of the 
proposals.

I respect suggestions that I split PP#110 into separate portions, with 
the goal of improving the existing 4.10 pool of /10 of IPv4 for IPv6 
migration pool. However, in my view, any potential importance for 
improvements to the existing 4.10 would mean things have gone very 
badly, resulting in little enthusiasm on my part for that project.

I further hesitate to inundate this community with a multitude of 
piecemeal proposals, many of which may serve little purpose other than 
to consume your time and attention.

I lay no claims to any of the ideas or terminology in those proposals, 
those who like any portion therein should feel free to take them as 
their own.

I continue to have concerns that the abandonment of these proposals is a 
reflection of a course change and bias with regards to IPv4 proposals as 
per the recent posting and ensuing discussions of the AC's clarifying 
position regarding IPv4 proposals, which was anything but clear to me 
and to which I continue to have doubts as to its extent and correctness.

I would like the decision on these proposals and the objectives they 
encompass to rest first and foremost on the will of community, expressed 
here on this list, and hopefully at the public policy meeting as well.

As such, I am soliciting your support for the petitions I have posted 
for both or either of proposals 110 and 112 to be advanced to draft 
policy state for further consideration and discussion.

I will respect your decision in this matter.

Thank you for time and consideration.

Best,

Joe