[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[Michael Sinatra]

On 06/28/2012 01:11, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3 transfers
> claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to use. By
> stretching the period to five years, we start trading one underutilized
> resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to the claimed
> benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who objected to these
> transactions.
>
> No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand the
> timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before having any
> data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes that have been
> made. While I don't claim to know what the magic number should be, I think
> this change would be irresponsible at this time, based only on the
> speculations made on this mailing list.
>
> I'm opposed to this proposal.

+1

There needs to be a sweet spot between allowing a free and *competitive* 
market for IPv4 addresses and one in which a few speculators are allow 
to corner and massively distort the market.  From a theoretical 
perspective, I believe that sweet spot is going to be 36 months, 
although I want to give the current 24-month window some time for us to 
understand at least what negative consequences will arise.

Any entity that can afford a /N block of addresses has the resources to 
justify that need within a 36 month window, *unless* they don't plan to 
use the addresses, and simply intend to hoard them.  I think ultimately 
a 36 month window will be an appropriate filter that will keep the 
market competitive and also reduce speculation.  Of course, I'd like to 
have more data to back up this hypothesis, and I thank Jeff for 
providing some of his early findings.  I agree that it will be difficult 
to get really good data, and to me, that calls for caution and not 
sweeping change.

I remain opposed to the proposal as written and will oppose proposals 
that extend the window at this time.  I'd be willing to consider 36 
months around the December-January timeframe, unless circumstances 
dictate otherwise at that time.

I am going to invoke RS and make this my last response, as I think this 
thread is beginning to degenerate.

thanks,
michael