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

[Bill Darte]

The belief system from which the principles of 2050 seem to spring is
that....a public resource like IP addresses should be made available to
those who need them in as fair and equitable manner as possible in a way
that aids the expansion of the Internet.....the way that is done is through
public policy in this region through and RIR system founded upon those
principles and created by all those wishing to be part of the process.
That too seems obvious.  That the policies are unfair or obsolete is indeed
up to the discretion of those involved at least for the time being.

bd


On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130711/ae07ad78/attachment.htm>