[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

On 20 Apr, 2006, at 16:18, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>>   1. Each assignment must be accompanied by a recurring fee (at  
>>> least
>>> 1000-2000 USD/EUR a year, preferably 5000+).  This is peanuts
>>> (compared to other costs) to anyone who actually needs this
>>> multihoming solution.  However, this ensures at least some minimum
>>> usage barrier ("those who don't really need this can use different
>>> multihoming solutions"), and recovery of the resources back to RIR
>>> after the company has gone bankrupt or no longer needs the  
>>> addresses.
>>> If you don't know where to put the extra money, donate it to ISOC or
>>> something.
>>
>> As has been discussed at ARIN, this is a good way to get the  
>> government to
>> declare the RIR a monopoly engaging in anticompetitive behavior.   
>> I for
>> one don't want that.
>

Pekka, this doesn't sound like the right way to do policy, and yes,  
things that smell like "big guys get it, small guys don't" will be  
looked at suspiciously and rightly so.
Criteria ought to be of a technical nature.

Don't want PI: propose a feasible alternative that provides the same  
functionality under the current routing system, while looking for a  
better system.

>
>
> RIRs run on non-profit principle, but nothing precludes them from  
> increasing the expenses, e.g., for donations to make the internet a  
> better place, setting a foundation for multihoming research to  
> actually SOLVE this problem, etc.etc.

Now, *this* I do like a lot. RIRs sponsoring some research into  
something that directly affects the business they are chartered to do  
sounds right. It is one step further than the reporting pointing at  
the problem that Geoff is already doing at APNIC.

Joao Damas
ISC