[arin-ppml] Petitioning the abandonment of Policy Proposals 110 and 112
jmaimon at chl.com
Thu Jun 17 12:02:06 EDT 2010
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
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
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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML