> On Jun 5, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/5/2014 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Personally, I don't believe that IPv4 runout changes the need for policy >> that attempts to preserve fairness in how addresses are (re)distributed. I >> realize and respect that you disagree with this. However, my analysis of the >> continued need for this policy is not based on the context of ARIN still >> having IPv4. Obviously I can't authoritatively comment on anyone else's >> perspective and neither can you. > > IPv4 runout certainly changes the need for policy that attempts to preserve > fairness in how addresses are distributed *from the ARIN free pool*. Or at > least makes any such policy irrelevant unless/until more free pool is > generated for IPv4.
I don't believe that's all that current policy seeks to do. Current policy seeks fairness in who receives IP number resources, whether from the free pool or via transfer. I believe that the fairness in the receipt of resources remains the same regardless of the source of the resources. Clearly you don't agree and that's fine. > The means by which ARIN ensures "fairness" when allocating from the free pool > are necessarily quite different than any means by which ARIN might ensure > "fairness" when private parties are making agreements to exchange the right > to current or future use of address space for money. I disagree completely. > Even if there are such means, expecting the *same* policy and mechanisms to > have an identical effect in both cases is foolhardy, in my opinion. And we can agree to disagree about this, but it does not mean that I have not considered the future context just because I came to a different conclusion than you have. > If you *really* wanted ARIN to be able to use the same policy, we should give > ARIN enough money that it could incent current holders to return their space > to the free pool, then allocate from the newly refilled pool to exactly the > "right" people (those who most fit the established "fair" need-based > policies). I proposed this, actually, some time ago and it was very quickly shouted down. > Or of course tell people to get IPv6 addresses and figure IPv4 is going to > get pretty ugly no matter what. Which I think is a pretty good summary of what I've been doing for the last 6+ years. Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
