[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised Problem Statement and Policy Text

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Majority is certainly more problematic than plurality. Plurality might not be
> the best possible choice, either, but nobody, including myself, has yet proposed
> a better alternative. The AC would certainly welcome any improved language
> from the community if anyone has a better idea.

Hi Owen,

The intent of the policy proposal is to keep the use of ARIN addresses
in-region. I say this with the utmost respect: A 20% rule doesn't do
that. It does, however, create a new and potentially onerous
documentary burden on every registrant requesting addresses.

More, "plurality" makes the 20% rule needlessly complicated. I have to
keep 20% in the ARIN region... unless I have 23% in the RIPE region
and then I need to keep 24% in the ARIN region unless I have 30% in
the APNIC region in which case I need 31% in the ARIN region, but if
that drops the RIPE region down to 27% I can reduce the ARIN region
holdings to 28%.

Yuck!

I'm for keeping ARIN addresses in region. I'm against creating new and
potentially onerous documentary burdens. I'm doubly against creating
new and potentially onerous documentary burdens which fail to
plausibly achieve their defined goal.

If there is no community consensus for a "should be in region" number
in the 80% to 90% range then I think the draft should be abandoned. A
plurality rule combines the worst elements of the notion, not the
best.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004