This policy proposal has now been introduced into the ARIN region. I will not speak to the merits of this proposal, but will ask the question that the ARIN General Counsel is now taking up: What is the liability exposure to ARIN if this policy is adopted? What are the anti-trust implications if this is adopted by ARIN? Additionally, the attorneys of all the RIRs should consider what is the anti-trust implication of this proposal if adopted globally? I do not intend for this to start a legal discussion on this list by a bunch of people who are not attorneys but rather to say that this proposal like any other proposal can have consequences that the authors of the proposal do not intend. In the case of the anti-trust implications, this could be extremely harmful to any RIR that adopts it, and therefore this should be carefully scrutinized by competent attorneys before the community adopts it.
By this message, I ask Paul Wilson to introduce my comments into the discussion of this policy at the APNIC meeting.
Ray
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Takashi Arano
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:55 AM
> To: Robert Gray
> Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net; Takashi Arano; Takashi Arano
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> At 04:51 07/02/28, Robert Gray wrote:
> >>IPv4 exhaustion gives negative impact, more or less.
> >>The issue here is how to reduce the pain. As Randy said, choice of
> short sharp pain or long-term pain well describes this issue.
> >
> >Arano-san
> >
> >I'm not sure that the choice is this simple.
> >
> >The community needs to promote a progressive global deployment of IPv6
> and this needs to start very soon otherwise there will be no ability to
> transition when the time (however defined) comes.
> >
> >I do not think that the imposition of arbitrary exhaustion dates will
> of itself be sufficient to make this happen.
>
> Our intention is not to impose something.
> This is intended to guarantee LIRs to get IPv4 addresses by the
> specific date pre-announced.
> As a result, x-date would be shorten just by one a few months.
> We believe it is useful and necessary for LIR/ISP's planning division.
>
> >>Anyway, time proceeds. We have to confront this issue seriously
> >>and as soon as possible.
> >
> >Here we agree 100%
> >
> >The difference in approach seems to be that some of us would like to
> see more action taken sooner to specifically promote IPv6 deployment
> rather than concentrating solely on what happens until x-date
>
> Yes, on different hats of mine, the IPv6 forum and Asia Pacific IPv6
> Task Force
> are going to promote IPv6 and provide some guidelines for ISPs more
> seriously than ever.
>
> Regards,
> Takashi Arano
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy