Just commenting on some of the points that have been discussed recently regarding this proposal:
1. "We also don't know how exactly the industry is going to react to this." (Terry)
That is certainly a valid point, and as I discuss in another email that means that "good" and "bad" behaviours could emerge. So this point may be a reason to defer consideration of this type of proposal to a later meeting, or it may be thought that the potential change of behaviours may happen so quickly that the decision needs to be made now - I'll leave that for the members to decide when they discuss this proposal in Hong Kong.
Another problem I see is that that the more addresses that APNIC reserve in the final policy, the more APNIC is asked to decide between what are "good" and "bad" uses of those addresses, and I'm not sure that it is desirable for APNIC to have to make more judgements of that type than is absolutely necessary.
2. "keeping it in the public trust is conservation." (Randy)Only if there is continual governance of those resources. I believe that if APNIC is going to deliberately withhold resources when there is clear public demand for them, then APNIC at least should be reviewing regularly that it is still appropriate to continue to withhold those resources.
Please consider this proposal as part of such a process of regular review!3. "I do _not_ see validity in Camp #1.5 (reserve the /9 and dish out the other /9) - that's junkie mentality. We do that and we'll be back in 6 months splitting the /9 into 2 /10s, until we're really out." (Raphael)
I suppose the real question of the proposal is "What is the right size to reserve for Camp 2?", and, I've as stated above, consider it to be a check on whether a full /8 is really required, especially that given the recorded membership rates to date suggest it could be too large. So the intent of the proposal is to ensure all resources are used appropriately - reserved where there is good purpose to do so, and otherwise distributed as per APNIC's standard role.
Regarding the possibility that this might be the start of a process of whittling the final /8 away to nothing, it' certainly not what I'm intending, and I'd be very surprised if it happened. Having said that though, I'll say again that I believe that continuous review of holdings is appropriate, and if the membership believes at a future time that it would be better for the resources to be distributed than to be held further, then that will be the members' choice.
4. "and there ain't gonna be no more. period. get over it." but "there is a last reserve for our children." (Randy)
I want my children to only see IPv4 addresses in the Internet history books, along with X.25, GOSIP, etc. and asking the question "Why did it take you so long to move from 32-bit addresses?" :-)