[arin-ppml] If it ain't broke... [WAS: Re: ARIN-prop-163 Dedicated resources for initial ISP allocations]

[Michael Sinatra]

On 2/2/12 1:09 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>> Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>> I may be inclined to support, but really the free pool should be
>>> further restricted. Companies with the financial resources should be
>>> encouraged to use the transfer market. New applicants who are also
>>> small businesses, non-profit, etc. should be given priority on the
>>> free pool. This could go many ways, but I wanted to at least open it
>>> up for discussion.
> 
> Joe Maimon wrote:
>> Jeff,
>> I agree with you, but that turkey never got airborne when I last tried it.
>> See
>> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-April/017321.html
>> Perhaps you would have better luck -- jump in the water is fine!
> 
> Another angle to consider in this debate is that the current state of
> affairs is already conducive to this precise behavior.
> 
> Currently we have a three month window for allocations from the free
> pool and a soon to be 24 month window for transfers. This disparity
> creates the encouragement and thus priority that Jeffrey calls for. I
> say this because the 3-month window creates an administrative burden
> and a limited planning horizon, thus encouraging folks to look
> elsewhere for addresses. Companies with large enough networks are
> finding new ways to optimize their internal usage to free up addresses
> for use, rather than return to the free pool. Other companies with
> large enough bank accounts are starting to turn to the transfer
> market, where they can "dip" less often; creating lower administrative
> overhead and a better planning horizon (24 months vs. 3). The net
> affect seems to be that larger, more established players are going
> elsewhere, leaving the free pool available for smaller and newer
> players. The difference in allocation windows actually creates a free
> pool reserve, quite on accident, but effective none the less.
> 
> Something to consider.

Chris:

You have managed to do a much better job of explaining the rationale
behind the disparity between free-pool-protectionism and
transfer-market-liberalization than has been done in this forum
recently.  I am still not sure I totally agree with it (for example,
what does it do to middle-tier ISPs, as opposed to large/small ISPs or
new entrants?), and I am still concerned that rather than a "soft
landing" we will never actually land, but will instead get shot down by
others.  But I definitely appreciate the clear and generally-unbiased
explanation of the rationale that you have given, as I also appreciate
in-person discussions I have had with Mr. Farmer.  Thanks to you both.

michael