[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

Speaking only as myself...

On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable
>> IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] I am wondering what a 24 month forecast looks like. 

Slightly less fictitious than a 36 month forecast and a whole lot less fictitious than a 60 month forecast.

> If you find 2 years acceptable and 5 years unacceptable, can you tell me where the line is drawn? Scientifically? Is 3 years ok with you? Two and a half? Four? Why not one year? On what basis are you choosing one or the other? These are not rhetorical questions. I'd really like to know. I frankly don't think you, or anyone on this list can provide a solid, scientifically grounded basis for any one of those time periods. 

Since I felt that 2 years wasn't acceptable and wanted to draw the line at 12 months, it's hard to answer the question as you phrased it.

Scientifically? This isn't really about science. It's about policy, fairness, perception, and guestimation.

I would be OK with 1 year. The community recently set the bar to two years. One thing I am certain of... The greater the dichotomy between the time period set for directed transfers and the time period allowed for free-pool allocations/assignments, the worse we make the situation for the internet overall. Incentivizing organizations to select transfers in preference to free pool allocations/assignments is contrary to the best interests of the internet overall and, IMHO, contrary to the interests of the community.

While it is true that my organization (HE) and I work very hard to promote IPv6, we also profit significantly from a prolonged migration period. While I realize it is difficult for someone like Mr. Mueller to understand, maximum profit is not always everyone's goal. Consider that my current job is almost entirely centered around transition. Once transition is actually completed, my current function essentially evaporates and I will need to find new tasks or a new job. In reality, my own personal financial interest is best served by prolonging transition pain as long as possible and maximizing the revenue from the transition process.

Nonetheless, I see that as contrary to the good of the community and contrary to the good of the internet. As such, I will continue to work towards policies which do not prolong the transition process and do not increase the pain of that transition. Increasing the dichotomy of the timeframes for justifications on transfers vs. free pool delegations will increase the duration and pain of the transition process. The current 21 month dichotomy is already well beyond what I believe to be good policy.

> What you all seem to be forgetting is that the needs demonstrations ARIN is accustomed to are based on free-pool allocations. 
> But free-pool allocations don't involve commitments of money. When acquiring durable assets and making outlays, one approaches IP addresses in a different manner, one MUST look at a longer term horizon. 

What is your scientific basis for this?



Owen