[arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:02:13AM -0600, David Farmer wrote:

> We (globally) created a run-out scheme that was going to be uneven.
> There was at least one rejected proposal that tried to even out the
> run-out across the RIRs.  Unfortunately, I think we just need to
> live with the consequences of our actions, or inaction in this case.

> As the problem statement says, I think the real problem is that
> policy is ambiguous on the subject of out of region use.  Which
> means there are some in the community that think out of region use
> is outside the rules, as you seem to think.  Then others think it is
> perfectly normal and has always been allowed, because its never been
> disallowed in policy.  I think we need to clarify that out of region
> use was always intended to be allowed by policy.

I am normally loathe to say "+1", but I have to agree very strongly
with the above.  The impulse to try to do something here is
well-intended but badly misguided.  It will have negative side effects
as one tries to write exceptional exceptions for the exceptionally
exceptional case.  The reason clichés are cliché is that they express
a truth, and in this case the cliché, "Hard cases make bad law,"
applies.  New policies, if they are to be adopted, ought to reinforce
the historically permissive stance ARIN has taken.

Will that have the consequence that some will come "out of region" and
incorporate for convenience and try to corner the market on the
remaining IPv4?  Yes.  The idea that ARIN can make a policy that will
successfully stanch the well-known problems of speculation and gaming
in commodity markets during scarcity and without doing incidental
damage is, I think, too ambitious.

Best regards,

Andrew (I work for Dyn.  The above remarks may not reflect their
opinion.)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com