[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-146 Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

[John Springer]

Hi Mathew,

Thank you for the response(s), but I remain unpersuaded.
More comments inline.

On Tue, 3 May 2011, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 5/3/2011 3:33 PM, John Springer wrote:
>> I oppose proposal ARIN-prop-146.
>> Comments inline.
>> 
>> On Tue, 3 May 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 
>>> On May 2, 2011, at 9:22 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/2/2011 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Welcome to the post-run-out world. Why should we let you acquire more 
>>>>> space now and deny that
>>>>> space to someone else who has justified need now?
>>>> 
>>>> Because I can afford it and have taken the time to find a seller.
>>>> 
>>>> Or were you planning on enacting price controls on the market as well?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No, I think justified need is the only required control on the market. I 
>>> don't see a need for price
>>> controls, but, I do see a need to ensure that people like you do not get 
>>> excessive address
>>> space just because you have greater financial resources vs. others who 
>>> need it now, but
>>> have lesser financial resources.
>> 
>> <bows to Owen>
>> 
>> I see a need to ensure that people who have greater resources do not get 
>> more additional address space than others who also need it, but have lesser 
>> resources.

OK, I responded to a comment, not a proposal or a thread. My bad. Still.

>> Basically, what is being proposed here, stripped of a lot of heat and light 
>> is an environment where more resources is a much better advantage than 
>> currently.
>>
>> Who wouldn't want that?
>
> I don't have a problem with justified need for transfers. I *do* have a 
> problem with creating large sets of people who can't even *use* transfers to 
> fulfill their needs because the 3-month limit *they* are subject to is a lot 
> different operationally than the 12-month limit the rest of the transfer 
> recipients are subject to.

> I do not see how someone can operate a business that will still need IPv4 
> addresses in order to function and yet be limited to only getting three 
> months at a time via transfer when their competitors are allowed to get 12 
> months at a time via transfer.

Not still need, need for the first time.
According to your subsequent comment to Marty: "The people this policy 
change protects currently have no IPv4 space (as if they did they'd be 
processed under the policy which does have the 12-month exemption), but 
will need to acquire some after ARIN runout."

People who have no IPv4 space, but will need to acquire some after ARIN 
runout. This is exceptional advocacy. It also seems like a self limiting 
problem. I am not sure whether giving them 12 months instead of 3 will 
help that. ???

In any case, why on earth would you answer the question "Why should we let 
you acquire more space now and deny that space to someone else..." 
(meaning someone just now needing IPV4 space versus someone already in the 
business) with "Because I can afford it and have taken the time to find a 
seller." Some of us here on PPML, (eternally vituperated), puzzled by 
wording and motive, wait until discussion seems to resolve upon something 
that galvanizes us, to respond. I don't think in my case you did your 
cause any favors with that response. I believe now that I misunderstood at 
least the context of your statements. Would you please do me the favor to 
identify, if you will, what party getting into the IPV4 business after 
ARIN runout, other than speculators, deserves favors such as this?

> Sure... back when there was a free pool, making them jump through the extra 
> hoops every 3 months to show that they're doing the right thing makes (some) 
> sense... but once there isn't, every time they get space might be their last.

While I admit that my initial opposition to this was based on a completely 
unprecedented <grin> misunderstanding, now that I think I am clear(er) I 
am still opposed. Give bigger chunks of scarce IPV4 space to _NEW_ 
entrants simply "Because I can afford it and have taken the time to find a 
seller."? Insufficient information, at best.


John Springer

> Matthew Kaufman
>
>