Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

[Shane Ronan <sronan () fattoc com>]

I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a  
big cop out to me.

A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4  
resources, they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing  
potential solutions and start conversation rather then saying that the  
users should come up with a proposal which they then get a big vote one.

B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group  
trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public  
opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are  
designed is such a way to guarantee maximum adoption of v6 and thus  
reducing the potential for depletion of v4 space.

C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be  
interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since  
it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it  
is being spent in a reasonable manner, and the fees are where they  
need to be to sustain the organizations reasonable operations, but  
perhaps not.

Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in  
particular the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will  
simply sign off on what they IT staff tells them (as they have little  
to no understanding of the situation), can you explain what exactly  
you are hoping to achieve by heaping on yet an additional requirement  
to the already over burdensome process of receiving an IPv4 allocation?

Shane Ronan

--Opinions contained herein are strictly my own--




On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:01 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Roger -
>
>    A few nits:
>
>    A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take
>       action without the Internet community first making some policy
>       on what action should be taken...  Please get together with  
> folks
>       of similar mind either via PPML or via Public Policy meeting at
>       the the Open Policy Bof, and then propose a policy accordingly.
>
>    B) Technical standards for NAT & NAPT are the IETF's job, not  
> ARIN's.
>
>    C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> Acting CEO
> ARIN