[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-163 Dedicated resources for initial ISP allocations

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>
>
> David Farmer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/8/12 21:02 CST, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is it important that it be discussed prior to deprecating the three
>>> month rule?
>>
>>
>> I prefer "redefining the soft landing trigger" or "resetting the
>> trigger" to "deprecate the three month rule", because as proposed the
>> three month rule wouldn't be deprecated, but the trigger reset for a new
>> three-month rule to kick in when the free pool is down to /8.
>>
>> However, if we do that before discussing this issue it is possible that
>> the free pool could be depleted down below /8 before this policy could
>> be reasonably implemented. If we at least start the discussion at the
>> same PPM as we start the discussion of resetting the trigger then I'm
>> confident we could implement it if desired before we get down to a /8
>>
>> I'm not saying we have to do this for me to support resetting the
>> trigger. However, I feel resetting the trigger before at least starting
>> a serious discussion of this is a little disingenuous. At least that is
>> my opinion.
>>
>
> David,
>
> I appreciate your support and I agree with you. Proposals to modify the
> three month window have direct relevance to the import and impact of this
> proposal.
>
> You still wont see me supporting three month window reversions.
>


>From the policy perspective, you are both inaccurate with respect to
linkage. One proposal is about redefining the window of need from
three to twelve months. The other is for trying to provide for "new
entrants". The former has considerable support, the latter doesn't. I
don't see any reason to link them one way or the other, they're
mutually exclusive.

With regards to this proposal, it's not like there's an
anti-competitive practice taking place. The reason why new entrants
won't be able to get address space is because of a design fault that
is the root cause of run-out. We would've, and we will, run out no
matter what is put aside or reserved for anyone. There's also a legacy
market to consider that at the moment is quite competitive to ARIN.
The cost of ownership vs. the cost of leasing is comparable to some
extent. It may be this way for as long as some set-aside lasts as
well. That would boil us down to protecting people who don't have cash
flow to acquire addresses. Capitalism works like that. Not everyone is
equal.

Best,

-M<