[arin-ppml] Draft proposal that needs some wordsmithing
matthew at matthew.at
Thu May 5 22:48:07 EDT 2011
On 5/5/2011 7:38 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> 1) How/why does fact number five change any of the preceding facts?
> (i.e. Why should the realization of scarcity change our stewardship
> behavior, behavior that was based on an understanding of scarcity?)
One argument might be that once the price is high enough, price will
discourage those without need.
> 2) Why would any organization with need for unique IPv4 addresses
> choose to not have those addresses recorded in the database which
> guarantees their value in order to escape stating their need? (i.e.
> What class of organization with legitimate need would be hurt by
> having to demonstrate that need before receiving addresses?)
Well, I've already answered that in my proposal... organizations that
are new or which have had ARIN addresses for less than 12 months are
only allowed to demonstrate need for a 3-month supply of addresses,
whereas existing orgs can simply demonstrate need for a 12-month supply.
In a fairly illiquid transfer market, the odds of finding any addresses
at all will be difficult... and being restricted to only getting 3
months worth once they're found will likely be a much larger hardship
for those orgs than it is today, when the 3 month supply is simply
replenished with an email showing they've been used.
More information about the ARIN-PPML