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

[George Herbert]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2011, at 3:42 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 5, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2011 3:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> True. What it does is remove the non-needers from the pool of people you
>>>>> have to out-bid. What I don't understand is how adding non-needers to the
>>>>> pool would help.
>>>>
>>>> Please clarify how Proposal 146 adds "non-needers" to the pool, as that certainly is not the intent of the policy proposal I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Kaufman
>>>
>>> Sorry... Conflation of multiple discussions....
>>>
>>>
>>> Prop. 146 doesn't add non-needers, it adds optimistic speculative need.
>>
>> It refines the definition of speculation; all requests are at least 3
>> month speculation or extrapolations now, and those of existing holders
>> w/records are longer.  This just levels the bar (i.e., new entrants
>> are more speculative, but we put their speculation on the same level
>> as that of existing holders who are extrapolating).
>>
> It replaces three month speculation with 12 month speculation to place
> it on what you call an equal footing with 12 month extrapolation.
>
>
>> I'm not sure that I support 146 as written, but I think that the
>> intent is good (level the playing field in terms of resource use time
>> scale) as long as we ensure that there are reasonable limits to keep
>> this useful to new entrants but not someone who's outright speculating
>> / hoarding and not using.
>>
> The problem is that elevating speculation to the same level as
> extrapolation of past performance in the evaluation of needs
> basis strikes me not as a level playing field, but, rather tilting the
> game in the opposite direction.

The part of my mail you snipped tried to address this:
>> Perhaps a clause allowing for ARIN staff to evaluate if credible
>> multihoming need or other legitimate justification exists, in which
>> case the time scales are leveled, or a clause allowing prior
>> non-direct-allocation usage to be considered for needs justification
>> for a longer timescale, in which case the time scales are leveled.

Credible (and ARIN-approved well justified) multihoming need, prior
non-direct-allocation utilization, or another community-derived needs
based criterion seems entirely reasonable to me as being a way to
avoid rampant fiction or unjustified speculation, in determining if we
extend past the 3 months for a particular request and allow them to go
out to the same as existing players get.

This is a bit more work for ARIN for the exceptions, but I don't think
it tilts the playing field back towards the new entrants in any
significant way.

I would hope and expect there won't be many exceptions, and am not
suggesting we overload ARIN with ludicrous speculation exception
requests, but it seems that somewhere in there lies a credible and
fair balance point.

Matthew's suggestions related to size limits on this are also motion
towards a credible and fair balance point.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com