[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....
owen at delong.com
Wed Aug 31 12:52:26 EDT 2011
On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>>> I would like to point out that Prop-151 addresses all of these issues, the imbalance between legacy and non-legacy, the danger of section 12 threats to trading, and the removal of resource review and reclamation from all address holders who have had their addresses for more than one year. Plus the issues of public auctions of space are more simple to navigate when ARIN restricts itself to booking legal transfers.
>> I would not call abandoning all regulation of the market "addressing the issues". I would
>> call it abdicating responsibility.
>> From Prop-151:
> The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.
> - The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.
> - The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
> to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
> IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
> to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
> space held, including all transferred resources.
> - If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
> of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
> demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
> which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
> For some people who crave more regulation, I suppose fewer regulations is equal to abandoning all regulation.
If they are required to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address space held, including all transferred resources, then, what is the point of removing the needs basis from the transfer? Why let them transfer it only to have it revoked later if they can't account for efficient utilization?
More information about the ARIN-PPML