You bring up an excellent point about policies changing. Maybe things would
improve for everyone if the folks in this community who help set polices, have
those same policies applied to everyone including them - for both new
allocations AND renewal of ALL allocations.
Then every year the folks who have resources would have to go thru the needs
testing again to make sure they are actually using the resources per the then
current policy. I suspect some of the needs testing policies would change
pretty fast if all renewal requests had to comply just like new requests.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:15:46PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> .com permutations is limited too.
Yes, and my mail pointed out how.
> IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources
> that Internet users need to use the Internet.
They're different kinds of resources, though. Protocol parameters are also
just Internet resources, but there are different policies for how you get a DNS
RRTYPE number, a UDP or TCP port number, and so on; and these policies are
different to how one gets an IP address or a domain name. Saying, "Just
resources, therefore they should have the same policy," effectively claims that
there are no differences between these kinds of resources; I claim that's false.
> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation. Regardless of any
> policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.
> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK
> to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
The argument for the minimum allocation policy is not "size of org", but
"amount of use given the allocation and minimum allocation size given the
Internet routing system". I don't have any trouble imagining that a name
registry approaching identifier exhaustion could adopt a policy that domain
names in the registry would be required to be used (or the registration would
be revoked). In fact, some name registries do have separate allocation
policies for "reservation" and "registration". Xxx does this, for instance (a
very effective revenue-plumping move, I am told). Of course, the differences
between naming and numbering probably mean that such a restriction in the name
case would be silly except in particular cases (like xxx). And that's sort of
the point: the analogy isn't doing the work you want here, because the
differences between names and numbers means that policy for one of them is not
good in the other case. For example, number resources can't be handed out one
at a time for the sake of the routing system, but domain names are _always_
allocated that way.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
