[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

[Steven Ryerse]

Owen wrote: However, IMHO, we are at a point with IPv4 where every address allocated or assigned is an address effectively taken away from someone else. Therefore, it is only prudent to make sure that each address allocated or assigned goes to an organization with a genuine need for those addresses.

Steven wrote:  Another way of saying what you stated above is that it is OK to deny allocations to a small Org with limited resources so that larger ones with deeper pockets can get them.  I don’t know if you prefer it to be that way, but that is the way it is in real life for a small Org.  That is what I am fighting to change.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

[Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks℠

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:04 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: Internet Fairness


On Dec 18, 2014, at 08:35 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.

I disagree. The number of orgs denied by previous iterations of the policy are no longer relevant. What is relevant is experience with the current policy. Continuing to focus on the past results of problems in policy which have already been corrected in the policy doesn't do anything for anyone. If there are still flaws in the current policy, then let's examine what is happening in those cases.


I don’t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn’t have happened!  ARIN’s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.

I don't agree. There are lots of cases where an organization could present a desire for addresses without a need. Handing out the limited remaining resources to such organizations would be a disservice to the community and to the internet. You may not share my opinion in this area and we can (and likely will) agree to disagree. However, IMHO, we are at a point with IPv4 where every address allocated or assigned is an address effectively taken away from someone else. Therefore, it is only prudent to make sure that each address allocated or assigned goes to an organization with a genuine need for those addresses.


If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn’t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.

This is an absurd apples and oranges comparison.

Let's try making something a bit more parallel...

Is it OK to deny people 2-letter SLDs? Is it OK to deny people TLDs? What about 3-letter SLDs?

There are only 3.2 Billion IPv4 unicast addresses. We can't make more. We can't continue giving them out when we run out.

To the best of my knowledge, all possible 2 letter domains in COM, NET, and ORG are already registered. Therefore, anyone attempting to apply for a 2-letter SLD in those zones will be denied.

While ICANN is now handing out far more TLDs than I believe to be good for the internet, even their incredible burst of greed over sanity does not allow every applicant who wants one to get a TLD.

ALL resources have some form of policy restriction on them and some level of gatekeeping on how they are allocated.

Very soon, ARIN will be at a point where they will receive applications that will not result in a choice of approve/deny vs. which application gets space and which does not. Every allocation that goes to an organization without need at this point literally increases the number of applicants with need who will be denied when that time arrives.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141219/7b5ecd57/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1235 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141219/7b5ecd57/attachment.jpg>