David,
Regarding global policy on restricting RIR allocations, if you think one is needed, then there is a means to propose it.
Regarding land rush -- to some these types of global policy proposals represent a land rush "BY the RIRs" as opposed to the other one postulated of "TO the RIRs by the community". As someone recently pointed out to me the situation is akin to this:
Five vehicles: HumVee, Mercedes, small truck, tuk-tuk, motor scooter. One gas station with 46 gallons of gas. What do you do? Does it make a difference? Does the guy who delays switching to an alternative fuel gain an advantage or is he setting himself up for a hard time?
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:33 PM
To: Ray Plzak
Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal -
returning to mailing list for development
Ray,
On Sep 27, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Ray Plzak wrote:
There is nothing to preclude an RIR from requesting to get what it
can justify, albeit that the RIRs have informally said that they
will only accept a max of 2 /8s.
Presumably what would preclude this is the fact that the RIRs have an
informal agreement to request a maximum of 2 /8s. If this informal
agreement is vulnerable to breaking down, perhaps it is advisable
that this 'informal agreement' be made into a more formal global
policy?
Thus the following scenario is highly possible:
IANA has 6 /8s remaining; RIR qualifies for 4 /8s and decides to
accept what it qualifies for; what does IANA do with the remaining
2 /8s.
Indeed. And if the RIR qualifies for 6 /8s, game over a bit earlier
than expected.
It would be unfortunate if the land rush anticipated by some within
the ISP community was actually triggered by the RIRs.
Regards,
-drc