[arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies

[John Springer]

Comments inline.

>To All Members of the Community,

> The AC strongly believes that the whole of the ARIN community requires 
> and deserves a stable policy environment in order to better prepare and 
> plan for IPv4 run out and deployment of IPv6.

I concur with this belief.

> With that in mind, the AC would like to advise the community that unless 
> a proposal affecting IPv4 assignments has a compelling benefit for and 
> receives strong initial support from the community the AC will most 
> likely choose to abandon the proposal.

I find this to be sensible. I support the application of the criteria 
stated in this advisory as a method of deciding action on proposals.

Quibble: strong initial support seems empirically quantifiable. Compelling 
benefit seems more likely to be elusive.

A couple of recent quotes (my apologies to the authors if I am taking you 
out of context).

On Fri, 7 May 2010 14:05:34 -0500, on ppml,  Wesley.E.George at sprint.com 
opined, referring to a recent IPV4 proposal: "Have you ever heard the 
phrase "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"?"

On May 12, 2010 1:02 PM PDT, on CircleID, Yves Poppe, stated (referring to 
ARIN XXV in Toronto), "...an inordinate amount of time was spent yet again 
debating proposals on how to handle the dwindling stock of IPv4 addresses. 
I get the distinct impression that some people will still be tabling 
proposals and discuss (sic) the issue long after the last IPv4 block has 
been allocated by IANA and even the RIR's themselves."

Another phrase that comes to mind is "making the rubble bounce".

Comments on timing specifically with respect to IPV4 allocations:

I don't think that the IANA IPV4 Free Pool Runout will occur _after_ the 
Fall 2011 ARIN meeting. Therefore proposals have only 2 meetings (Fall 
2010 & Spring 2011) to run prospective IPV4 policies through the PDP. 
Let's say a prospective IPV4 policy proposal does not meet the criteria: 
"compelling benefit for and receives strong initial support from the 
community". The likelihood of it gaining consensus at the Public Policy 
Meeting in Atlanta is (much?) lower than if it does. And if it fails 
there, the likelihood of it being considered enough of an emergency to be 
pushed through to last call without further discussion on the ppml and in 
San Juan is also low. And if it then gains consensus in San Juan and goes 
through last call successfully, it has, um, limited time of utility.

Perhaps these timing considerations are not pertinent to the basis of the 
AC advisory, if so, kindly disregard.

None of the preceeding is intended to suggest that I wish to preclude the 
_proposal_ of, ah, less vociferously supported policies, but I support the 
sentiments of this advisory WRT processing them.

> The AC recognizes its commitment to the community and after 
> introspection and discussion has concluded that this is the best course 
> of action.

I accept this conclusion.

John Springer
Inland Telephone Company