[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 5, 2013, at 17:11 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/5/13, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
>> On 6/5/13 4:44 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> The needs based policies will need to be constantly tightened "to keep
>>> from running out".
>> Exactly why do you advocate that?
> 
> I think the implementation of policy shifts to stricter and stricter
> review and requirements,
> is already an established fact, not  a proposal?
> 

First, that's more of an operational matter than a policy matter to begin with and if you don't like what staff is doing, I highly recommend saying so through the ACSP.

> Something that happens anyways,  but still doesn't stop exhaustion;
> just a small delay.

I'm not completely convinced that it is happening or has happened or will happen, but, yes, even if it does, at worst, it delays exhaustion, at best, it has no real effect.

> Isn't  continuously "tightening the needs based policies"  what the
> "IPV4 Countdown plan" is all about?

Not at all. What the countdown plan is all about is trying to make the runout process as fair as possible to all stakeholders and community members.

> "PHASE FOUR (ONE /8 EQUIVALENT REMAINING)"
> "All requests of any size will be subject to team review."
> "The hold period for returned, reclaimed, and revoked blocks will be
> reduced to one month."

The first part is done to keep the process fair. While this additional level of scrutiny would have been impractical earlier in the runout process at this point, there is a limited number of requests which can get serviced at all and thus each of those requests will be under stricter controls for fairness. The application of policy should not be stricter or looser, but there will be a stronger effort to involve more of the ARIN staff in each review in order to keep the process as fair as possible. At least that is my understanding.

As to the second portion, what this says is that resources that have been returned to ARIN will be made available fore reissue faster than what has occurred in the past. This acceleration will reduce the cleanup and reputation repair that can be done on those blocks prior to them being reallocated/reassigned, but it will make them available sooner rather than later so as to satisfy as much of the demand for addresses as possible at the very end days of runout. In some ways, it could be argued that this is a loosening, not a tightening of policy enforcement.

> I read this as   "a higher standard of need"  and  "higher standard of
> proof"   will  be required, as the pool shrinks;  divided into 4
> phases.

I don't think it says that at all. What it says is that the conformance to policy will be reviewed by a larger group of people and greater effort will be made to keep the process as fair as possible.

Owen