[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 124: Clarification of Section 4.2.4.4

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 12/10/10 9:53 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:33 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/10/10 1:08 AM, "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>> [ clip ]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> However, I expect 8.3 transfers to be the only practical way to
>>> get space for a lot more than 3 months, so I think it's reasonable to
>>> leave that window at something longer.
>> 
>> There are strategies emerging via multiple sources that address this problem
>> head-on. You don't need the STLS to guarantee your need, you only need it to
>> legitimize your use per current ARIN policy. It will be cheaper to only push
>> exactly what you need through the STLS and on quarterly boundaries to
>> maximize expense control. You can guarantee your price outside of STLS.


> 
> I oppose this proposal. It departs from good stewardship of the address space.
> 
> Owen


If you voted for 8.3 you voted for this kind of activity. You seem to want
to have your cake and eat it too. You proposed an end-game policy that
squeezed out large networks and you're opposing a group working together to
try and address that inequity through the adaptation of an improved NRPM
4.10 that focuses more squarely on transition. Let me mention again that
Scott Liebrand proposed pushing CI non-profits to markets. You are both
confused about stewardship. It would be extremely beneficial for that group
to get together and to engage in a "call option" like activity if we aren't
able to guarantee their need.

The unfortunate negative is that speculators may engage in "call option"
like behavior. It seems inevitable though and highly unlikely to be able to
regulate. It could turn out to be beneficial since it could solidify and
underline the business case for v6, hence...no need for long term transfers.
Anyhow, YMMV. 


Best,

-M<