Put it in a policy proposal. I would support that. Owen
> On Dec 19, 2014, at 13:24 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
