[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 7/9/13 5:57 AM, Bill Darte wrote:
> ... the terms are near synonyms, but if anything....sustainable use as it
> relates to IPv4 suggests that we intend to continue the use of IPv4 in
> perpetuity....which I am against.  Conservation as a principle
> suggests again to me..that we carefully allocate/assign through
> technical/documented/justified need until the resource is no longer
> available or practicable.... 

Not everyone hears the same dog whistle.

An agency of government delegated some authority relevant to some
asset created by government.

Could that agency have meant, when making that delegation of
authority, that the delegation included the independent disposal of
the asset? I don't think the answer to that is "yes".

Is conservation of an asset indistinguishable from the use of the
asset? Here "use" means allocation of one or more values expressed in
32 bits not otherwise allocated. A conservation goal could be met by
ending allocation while one or more values expressed in 32 bits are
not otherwise allocated. In simpler terms, turning off the v4
allocation today would satisfy a conservation principle. It would not
meet any definition of a use principle that involved any further
allocations, from an all-remaining-to-X-tomorrow regime to
one-a-day-to-each-X-Y-Z regime. The principles of "conservation" and
"allocation" may therefore be distinguished, and "allocation without a
definite end" in particular.

I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest turning off v4 today, or tomorrow,
for large values of tomorrow, but to distinguish between things that
are offered as "near synonyms" it is necessary to ask "how do they
differ?"

Eric