[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?

[Sweeting, John]

No debate at all, I was curious about your question "how did the AC come to a /10?" and since I was not on the AC at the time I went into the transcripts to find out. I was simply answering your question, not making any specific point at all.


+++++
________________________________________
From: Hannigan, Martin [marty at akamai.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:44 AM
To: Sweeting, John; Scott Leibrand
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?

On 11/30/10 8:53 AM, "Sweeting, John" <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:

> Marty, if you go back and read the transcripts from the fall 2008 meeting in
> LA it is explained by the author Alain Durand in his presentation. The poll at
> the time supported this proposal 129 in room, 55 in favor, 0 against. Thanks.
>
>

It's too bad that 2010-10 Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA
Post Exhaustion which was 40:5 didn't have such an easy go of it, but I
don't think that this thread is a debate about how to judge consensus so
let's move on.

That thread you quote isn't relevant, IMHO. It's already been established in
the previous public policy meeting and following that the policy is flawed
and we have multiple parties here agreeing. I think that defending 4.10 is a
waste of all of our time at this stage.

The relevant thread with respect as to why to deal with 4.10 at all is:

    [arin-ppml] Final draft of 2010-13 for Atlanta (Rev 1.55)


That demonstrates the weaknesses with respect to 4.10 in more detail and
includes suggestions to make improvements.

When you analyze the spread of who benefits from 4.10 it's legacy holders.
4.10 pretty much insures that smaller entities are less-likely to be
required to acquire address space on the open market and that legacy holders
are going to have addresses available for medium and larger networks to
purchase/fund through the STLS.

V4 is done, no arguments here. I'm not a legacy holder and my agenda is
mostly cost. If we're going to have policy related to transition it should
have some support other than "there's nothing better proposed" or we ought
to get rid of it. A fix would be better which is why 122 is out there.

Best,

-M<


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.