<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>FW: [arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Meant to copy the list on this email as well....<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Bill Darte<BR>
Sent: Fri 5/14/2010 8:13 PM<BR>
To: Ted Mittelstaedt<BR>
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies<BR>
<BR>
Ted,<BR>
<BR>
I certainly am not being, nor have I ever been disingenuous in my role as a AC member.<BR>
<BR>
Your crystal ball is a lot clearer than mine if you see the end game play out as you say. I don't dispute it, but have no confidence from my own experience that that will be the outcome in specifics.<BR>
<BR>
I do thing that it will be what it will be and that IPv4 has a very limited life as a mainstream protocol left, especially once the IANA runout happens, by whatever specific means come about. And, I admit I could be wrong about that as well.<BR>
<BR>
Fair as it relates to runout is not a term that has much meaning except as it is applied by individuals or groups wishing specific outcomes. I don't see a way to evaluate fair except as the PDP prescribes. We do our best to make good decisions taking into account the community needs and declarations and if it fails to satisfy some, then there are ample reliefs in the PDP for petitions.<BR>
<BR>
Having said that, I am anxious to do the right thing and will vote my 1/15th vote in the AC as my judgment and convictions dictate. But I can assure you that it will always be in the best interests of the community...large, small, conservatives and liberals, outliers and insiders as best I can assess it.<BR>
<BR>
I count on individuals like yourself to help me understand all perspectives and thus do my best.<BR>
<BR>
Bill Darte<BR>
ARIN AC<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [<A HREF="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">mailto:tedm@ipinc.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Fri 5/14/2010 6:45 PM<BR>
To: Bill Darte<BR>
Cc: Joe Maimon; arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies<BR>
<BR>
Bill,<BR>
<BR>
I think this is disingenuous. At this point in time with IPv4 end<BR>
game in sight there won't BE any IPv4 proposals that have strong<BR>
community consensus.<BR>
<BR>
In this endgame we are going to see ISPs fall into 2 classifications<BR>
the "conservatives" who want to go slowly and keep things as they are,<BR>
as they see an advantage to wringing the most usable life from IPv4, and<BR>
the "liberals" who want to press ahead full speed as they will see<BR>
an advantage to collecting customers who also want to press ahead. As<BR>
more time passes and the community gets further into the end-game the 2<BR>
groups will get further apart - with the conservatives shrinking and<BR>
the liberals growing. This is exactly how, for example the<BR>
VHS vs Betamax endgame played out - as more people switched to VHS and<BR>
disposed Betamax gear, the Betamax players dumped their cheap Beta gear<BR>
and bought the expensive discards, getting better and better gear -<BR>
until finally it ended, and the remaining Betamax players all switched<BR>
en-masse. This is also how the HD-TV endgame is playing out - you can,<BR>
today, for very little money get a superb used big-screen NTSC TV set<BR>
that cost $5K only a few years ago and the people who are using<BR>
converter boxes are doing just that - and in some cases getting a better<BR>
picture than the people who have bought new but inexpensive HDTV's.<BR>
<BR>
Since the conservatives and liberals will have diametrically opposite<BR>
goals (one group benefits the faster IPv6 is rolled out, the other group<BR>
benefits the slower IPv6 is rolled out) within a short time it will not<BR>
be possible to gain strong initial consensus over IPv4 proposals until<BR>
most of the conservatives have jumped ship to the liberal camp, and the<BR>
remainders are such a minority that community consensus will be that<BR>
IPv4 policy is of historical interest only.<BR>
<BR>
We may see 1 or 2 more IPv4-only proposals that have strong initial<BR>
consensus but the AC has made what I think is an accurate read on the<BR>
situation as they must certainly understand this - in their gut, if<BR>
nothing else.<BR>
<BR>
Holding out the promise of the AC treating and IPv4 proposal fairly<BR>
if it has strong community consensus is nothing more than window<BR>
dressing with no meaning since they understand that there will not<BR>
be strong community consensus.<BR>
<BR>
It would be a LOT more honest for the AC to merely announce that there<BR>
is NO obligation in the ARIN charter to "defend the minority" and<BR>
that ARIN is not a court of law that attempts to be "fair" to everyone,<BR>
but merely announce that it's obvious that IPv4 is unsustainable and<BR>
that it's a waste of time to bother with policy changes with it, so<BR>
they aren't going to do it - and let the chips fall where they may.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
<BR>
On 5/14/2010 3:30 PM, Bill Darte wrote:<BR>
> Joe,<BR>
><BR>
> Speaking for myself, not the entire AC,....<BR>
><BR>
> The AC is not, through its announcement, trying to discourage you or<BR>
> anyone from making proposals.<BR>
> The ACs statement simply says that the proposals need to represent a<BR>
> very good idea as measured by community support and the traditional test<BR>
> of clear, needed and technically feasible.<BR>
><BR>
> The only thing that has changed, is that the AC has stated that a new<BR>
> balance needs to be struck between the level of community consensus and<BR>
> the communities need for a stable and predictable policy environment.<BR>
><BR>
> The AC stands ready to forward any proposal that has broad community<BR>
> consensus, makes a needed and positive impact on the status quo, is<BR>
> clear and technically feasible.<BR>
><BR>
> Bill Darte<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Joe Maimon<BR>
> Sent: Fri 5/14/2010 5:00 PM<BR>
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt<BR>
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies<BR>
><BR>
> Hey Ted,<BR>
><BR>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:<BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
> > The AC's position of damn the torpedos, full speed ahead has NO LESS<BR>
> > validity than your position of let's do what we can to eke out a few<BR>
> > more years of IPv4.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> That is not my position. My position is that we should try and do what<BR>
> we reasonably can to prepare for the possibility that we may need IPv4<BR>
> more or longer than we either expected or wanted and to explore what if<BR>
> any possibilities exist to try and arrive at the lesser of undesirable<BR>
> outcomes should that be the case.<BR>
><BR>
> Normally that is considered the conventional approach.<BR>
><BR>
> Even the titanic had a women and children first policy. Where are our<BR>
> lifeboats? Are there enough of them?<BR>
><BR>
> Unfriendly reclamation has never been my position. I am against that. I<BR>
> want ARIN to be making friends, not losing them.<BR>
><BR>
> I am in favor of incentives for return or mild disincentives for non<BR>
> return, incentives for maximizing efficiency if or while it still<BR>
> matters. Incentives require relevancy.<BR>
><BR>
> The transfer policy, which serves as the legitimization of a potential<BR>
> trading market for addresses should provide a good part of that.<BR>
><BR>
> Some may feel that is enough. Some may feel that it is more than enough.<BR>
> Some may feel that there is more that can and should be done.<BR>
><BR>
> I would prefer the latter not be publicly discouraged by informing them<BR>
> that the field is already tilted in their disfavor.<BR>
><BR>
> Speaking for myself, I would probably have still submitted the two<BR>
> proposals I did, even after this announcement. But that could just be<BR>
> due to my thick skin (or thick head).<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
> > If you REALLY BELIEVE in your proposition that we need to spend a lot<BR>
> > more time on IPv4 policy tweaks then HAVE FAITH IN YOUR POSITION. As<BR>
> > I already stated, the AC position merely "informalizes" what is already<BR>
> > part of the process, so if YOU ARE right, then the community will surely<BR>
> > see this sometime in the future and there then will indeed be, as the<BR>
> > AC put it, IPv4 proposals that "have a compelling benefit for and<BR>
> > receive strong initial support from the community"<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Ted<BR>
><BR>
> What, is it not possible to be correct and still not gain community<BR>
> support, at least not within enough time to actually make a difference?<BR>
><BR>
> Either way I expect to have lots of fun and excitement.<BR>
><BR>
> Joe<BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> PPML<BR>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
> Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>