Re: [sig-policy] prop-053-v001: Changing minimum IPv4 allocationsize to
Frankly, and no offense I believe the second part of your
response made my assertion even better than I did. If allocation
size determins price/fee structure, than they are inter-related and
should be discussed together.
Strictly from my own point of view however, size of allocation
should have nothing what so ever to to with fees and everyone,
regardless of the allocation size, should pay a flat, one time fee
for their allocation. If they need an additional allocation at a
later date, than they should pay an additional fee accordingly.
One fee for any allocation size. size doesn't matter.
No pun intended! After all we're not talking about implants
here, now are we? >:)
What I personally have never understood, and do not now, is
how can a fair fee be determined other than by demand in a
given time frame? Ergo, if in 2008 I need and request a /24
and pay X amount, and than in 2011 need and request another
/24 and pay Y amount and the demand for IPv6 IP's hasn't
changed significantly, than why and/or would I pay more in
either 2008 or 2011? Secondly, currently the demand for
IPv6 address space is quite low, if as Randy has indicated
that moving to IPv6 is highly desired by the IANA, than
seems to me that giving IPv6 address space away might
excellerate the migration to IPv6 and extend the life of
IPv4 address space... Or is not extending the IPv4 address
space desired? And if not, why not?
Jonny Martin wrote:
> Hi Jeffery
> I agree with David here. There are two distinct and separate things
> that are being discussed here. Firstly, the question of what the
> minimum allocation size should be, and secondly, what the 'entry
> level' fees should be. The only connection between the two is the
> fact that the more space you have, the more you pay.
> Obviously a policy which allows the allocation of smaller prefixes
> may make it easier to lower, or otherwise create a new class of
> 'entry level' fees.
> These two issues are indeed separate issues, and trying to combine
> them both under one policy proposal is likely to result in policy
> that doesn't adequately address the needs of either.
> On 26/02/2008, at 1:42 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
> > David and all,
> > This suggestion seems like a devide and mess up stratagy.
> > David Woodgate wrote:
> >> And, to clarify my previous statement, I was assuming that any
> >> discussion about fees and membership structure would need to happen
> >> outside of the Policy SIG.
> >> My main concern is that the current proposal seems to be intertwining
> >> these other aspects with the question of what should be the smallest
> >> allocation, and I would prefer to see these items separated and
> >> debated in their respective areas.
> >> Regards,
> >> David Woodgate
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
My Phone: 214-244-4827