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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Fri Feb 10 22:37:41 EST 2012

On 2/9/12 24:47 CST, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>  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.

I never said they were linked from a policy perspective.  In fact I 
think from a policy perspective there are completely independent.  I 
support both this and returning to a 12 month supply.

However, if we were to restart the 12 month supply, following the next 
PPM and not discuss this proposal until this fall or next spring, then 
it may be to late from a practical perspective to implement this policy. 
  You seemed to express a similar concern in the following;

On 2/1/12 16:12 CST, Martin Hannigan wrote:
 > I'm interested in this, but shy of support for now. Also, If this were
 > to go into the AC masher, it would be torn apart for multiple cycles
 > and probably be too late for any good by the time that it was able to
 > be useful. Less text if possible would be very helpful. I think it's
 > possible.

So while I think these proposals are independent from a policy 
perspective, I wouldn't want to risk making this proposal irrelevant by 
delaying the start of our discussion of it.  In my view the best thing 
is to get both 162 and 163 to Vancouver as draft policies for adoption 
discussion by the community.  Then the AC can move one or both forward 
as appropriate.

> 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.

This sound to me like you no longer support the proposal, did you change 
your mind since the following?

On 2/1/12 23:00 CST, Martin Hannigan wrote:
 > Support. Needs more discussion, but shouldn't be dropped.

Or do I misunderstand you?

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list