[arin-ppml] Thoughts on Conservation [was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised]

[Chris Grundemann]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> This is however a solid observation, and I have a couple items for
> consideration in response:
>
> 1) Conservation is not the only guiding principle listed here for a
> reason, the principle of stewardship is in large part needed to
> balance the set of guiding principles.
> 2) ARIN (as a community) has chosen to go down the transfers path
> rather than the reclamation path, both can serve conservation if
> properly managed.
>
> Cheers,
> ~Chris
>
>
> I say that conservation as effected through RIR policies have never been
> directed at the utilization of allocated addresses, except in the context of
> additional free pool allocations.

That should read "except in the context of additional allocations."
The free pool has nothing to do with it. Really. If you want more
addresses (from any source) it seems perfectly reasonable to ensure
that all the other addresses you have are actually being used, if they
are not, you don't need more addresses. This feels like common sense
to me.

> Considering that as stewards we were charged with growing and sustaining the
> Internet, it made absolute sense to try to get as many addresses allocated
> as possible, constrained only by the need to protect the free pool from bad

Again, the constraint was and is protection of the number space, you
are elevating the free pool to an unwarranted level of attention in
order to claim that the principle disappears with the free pool. The
fact remains that we are discussing conservation of the entire
Internet number space(s) and have never been explicitly limited to
conservation of the free pool. In fact, conservation of the free pool
is antithetical to conservation of the number resource as a whole
because our goal is efficient utilization, not maintaining a perpetual
free pool.

> actors. Thus the decision not to charge for free pool addresses, but instead
> dole them out for free to those who merely had to demonstrate a need. It
> makes no sense to me to try to retrospectively dismantle this "light touch"
> distribution system and replace it with one which seems to require an
> ongoing audit/revokation mechanism to fully comply with this supposed

I have not seen anyone propose that we dismantle the existing paradigm
(save those who wish to drop needs assessments completely) nor anyone
proposing a new ongoing audit and revocation mechanism. Let's stick to
the facts and proposals that are on the table, I'm passionately
against the slaughter of unicorns but I doubt that's relevant to this
discussion...

> principle, especially in light of the natural conservation provided by a
> priced transfer market.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>



--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com