<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=3>I've waited for calmer waters
to discuss the merits of this proposal in hopes that others can do the same
and not get lost in the sea of procedural commentary. Just looking
at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I came up with and I would like to hear
what other pro's, con's, solutions and opinions the rest of the community has.
While I am grateful for those who have already posted their opinions to
ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks that have not yet posted to ppml on this
subject. <BR> <BR><B><I>Sunset Clause </I></B></FONT></SPAN><B><FONT
size=3><I><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">(was taken out of
2009-1)<BR></SPAN></I><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Pro</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=3>: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and
resume original policy.<BR><B>Con</B>: A hard date could be totally the wrong
date. <BR><B>Con</B>: Results may show evidence that keeping the transfer
policy as permanent policy is better for the ARIN than reverting back to
original policy. <BR><B>Alternate solution</B>: It might be better to
write in a clause the requires review and analysis of the state of address
space availability every year. If there proves to be zero difficulty
fulfilling IP requests for a period of one year then revert back to original
policy and deactivate this policy.<BR><B>My opinion</B>: Its cleaner and
easier not to have a sunset clause or anything of its kind. If in the
future we enter into free flowing address space again, we can always enact the
policy process to revert back to the original transfer policy. <SPAN
class=945260420-02042009> Either way its not a show stopper but going without
it seems to me to be the best way.</SPAN><BR></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR><BR><FONT size=3><B><I>Implementation Date Now and
no wait time<BR></I>Pro</B>: Immediate implementation would halt the growth of
the Black Market which is currently active and growing.<BR><B>Pro</B>:
Immediate implementation would help preserve WHOIS data. <BR><B>Con</B>: The
free world of addressing <SPAN class=945260420-02042009>as we currently
know it </SPAN>comes to an end. <SPAN class=945260420-02042009>
</SPAN><BR><B>Alternate solution</B>: Wait till the address availability has
reached a choking point.<BR><B>My opinion</B>: It sucks to see there is no
escape from supply and demand. The former utopian addressing world was
great but the fact is when the quantity of anything becomes limited, people no
longer freely share or give but require some form of monetary return.
We can't escape the fundamentals of supply and demand and I
believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much as possible is more
important than clinging to the past and in that time frame watching the black
market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and record of authoritative source
decline. We already need to improve in those areas and this isn't a jab
to start that discussion on ppml right now, but it would be best to in the
least take action that stops it from getting any worse while at the same time
ensuring conservation/proper usage.<BR> <BR><BR><B><I>New Definition
</I></B></FONT></SPAN><B><FONT size=3><I><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><FONT
size=3>“Organization. An Organization is one or more legal entities
under common control or ownership.”<BR></FONT></SPAN></I><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Pro</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=3>: This will force organizations into
proper management of IP addresses.<BR><B>Pro</B>: This could cut down on waste
from large organizations that are segmented. <BR><B>Con</B>: Large segmented
organizations will have to face management of address space on a higher level.
Currently one organization can own three or more companies that up until
now have operated separately when it came to address management. With
this additional definition Company A could have allot of address space that
effectively stops Company B from getting more address space because per the
new definition the addresses would need to be shared among the whole
Organization not individually by Company as in the past. This would
force address management up to the organizational level.<BR><B>Alternate
solution</B>: Grandfather existing organizations.<BR><B>My opinion</B>: While
this may be difficult to swallow for some organizations I believe its the most
accurate and efficient way to manage address space.<SPAN
class=945260420-02042009> It may also serve as an indirect push
towards the adoption of IPv6.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=3><SPAN
class=945260420-02042009></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=945260420-02042009><STRONG><EM>Clarification needed on what this policy
specifically is applied to (v4, v6
both?)</EM></STRONG></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN class=945260420-02042009><FONT
face=Arial size=2>New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for
IPv4 only. I think it needs to be clear what this policy will be applied
to as it makes sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a supply
and demand situation.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR></FONT><FONT size=3><B><I>In Summary:<BR></I></B>As I went
through this I was surprised to find that I actually think the changes made
are appropriate. I don't think the sunset clause is a functioning tool.
I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to waiting and the new
definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to address conservation
and management.<BR> <BR> <BR>Those are my 2 cents. I hope to
hear from the other community members that have not yet posted thoughts about
the policy text itself.<BR> <BR>Cheers<BR>Marla
Azinger<BR></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>