<!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 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Marla,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> The fact of the matter is that this isn't about the
merits of 2009-1 anymore. It is about whether or</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and
de-polarize this issue.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> If 2009-1 </FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>is put in place
against opposition, then it will be subject to constant
additional</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>future policy proposals to strip it out, and it will
require further opposition against the majority to</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>keep it in the policies, which will just widen the breach
of trust. Eventually it will go or the</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Board will go and then it will go after that - but by then
the atmosphere will be so poisoned</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>that we will be hamstrung with dealing with this IPv6
transition at a critical time.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> There is still time now for the Board to apologize
and atone for it's mistake. Atonement is</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>simple, either withdraw it and all proposals associated and
wait for a new, fresh set of proposals</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>during the next round, or, restore the sunset
clause.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> Seriously, this really, really, really isn't about
the merits of this proposal anymore. It</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>is an issue of trust - the Board broke it, and the cooler
heads out here are all sitting here</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>scratching our heads as to why the Board simply doesn't
acknowledge they screwed up</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>and take the extremely simple action, EASILY
reversible by policy later, of just restoring</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>the sunset clause.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Ted</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=365084021-02042009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net
[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Azinger,
Marla<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:41 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
arin-ppml@arin.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and
con merits of 2009-1 review<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>