[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 15, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>> 
>>    1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods
> 
>>    8. Rationale:
>> 
>> As a result of discussions surrounding current draft policies in last call, concern has been raised over the discrepancies in timing between free pool and transfer justification periods. This proposal seeks to normalize those justification periods to eliminate the harmful effects this is having on the transfer market.
>> 
>>    9. Timetable for implementation: immediate
>> 
>> 
>> END OF TEMPLATE
> 
> 
> 
> Opposed. Three month window is one of the few things (of many proposed) ARIN did that resembled a sane response to an impending resource starvation issue.
> 
> Undoing it because it is working (surprisingly well) as designed is silly, foolish, destructive and harmful to IPv4, which apparently people seem to still want to use.
> 
> Was it only a good idea when you thought it would not have any effect or that it would hasten the demise of IPv4 and help push people to use IPv6, whether they wanted to or not, whether they were ready or not?

It was a good idea when I thought ARIN would be one of the early registries to run out and that it would help to equalize the runout date.

> 
> I reject again the notion that keeps rearing its ugly head that for IPv6 to thrive we must hasten and cheer on the demise of IPv4.
> 

This is not about attempting to hasten the demise of IPv4 to support IPv6 adoption. That will happen in due course no matter what we do.

This is about reducing the skew of runout date amongst the different registries in order to reduce the harmful effects of asymmetrical runout on the global internet as a whole.

> Yes, I understand its seductive appeal. Short of giving it away (maybe it is time to try that, hmm?), there is not much more we can do to promote IPv6 adoption in the face of near market indifference.
> 

I think IPv6 adoption is well enough promoted at this point. This is actually about reducing the damage to the IPv4 internet that is being done by the skewed runout dates across different regions.

> Proper stewardship of IPv4 for the community of those who still seem to want to use it (everyone) should never involve telling the community that they will use and like ipv6, like it or not, ready or not.
> 

I'm really not sure how you get that from this proposal. If anything, this proposal encourages the use of IPv4.

Owen