[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers

John Springer springer at inlandnet.com
Tue May 24 23:34:36 EDT 2011

Hi Mike,

Brrrr, this is growing massive already. I'll try to edit judiciously.

On Tue, 24 May 2011, Mike Burns wrote:

>>>> What I am saying is that needs testing was a requirement for free pool 
>>>> allocations, and that is why we imposed needs tests on applicants for 
>>>> address space. Actually some kind of constraint was required, as it 
>>>> always is, for the distribution of unpriced but valuable resources.
>>> One thing that I have seen a lot of lately is asserting that something 
>>> happened _for_a_particular_reason_, and then using that _reason_ as a 
>>> launching pad. WRT the above, I agree that needs testing was imposed, but 
>>> saying that it was a requirement, which is why we imposed it seems 
>>> circular.
> I have tried to show that having some constraint was an absolute minimum 
> requirement, and that a needs-based justification was the steward's softest 
> touch which would meet the goals of conservation and aggregation.

Was and is. Needs basis remains despite suggestions that recent events 
have obliterated it.

>>>> So the stewards chose needs-testing of applicants, with the idea that we 
>>>> want allocated addresses put into actual and efficient use, and this 
>>>> method of constraint would serve those goals.
>>> Check.
>>>> Now, however, we do not need needs-testing to drive addresses towards 
>>>> efficient use, because we are allowing them to be priced, and that is a 
>>>> fundamental difference.
>>> Not so much check. We could restate this in reverse with equally valid 
>>> effect: We have needs testing to drive addresses toward efficient use, so 
>>> we don't need to be allowing them to be priced.
> You could say exactly that.
> Indeed, we did have needs testing to drive addresses toward efficient use, so 
> we did not need to price them.

And we still do and we still don't.

> Except that only works for allocations from the free pool, and we have 
> already decided to price them for transfers.

Not proven and not you and me, surely!

> My proposal is meant to be considered in an environment with priced 
> addresses, like our current one.

The proposal is being considered in a place that Gibson called "a 
consensual hallucination". Statements like the above may or my not have 
less semantic content than you think here, at least yet.

>>>> Tragedy of the Commons tip, cant delete that!
>>>> Now, however, whether with or without my policy, the stewards at ARIN 
>>>> chose to allow individuals to buy and sell addresses, and thus for 
>>>> addresses to have a price.
>>> Don't think so. I know you keep saying so, but IIRC the STLS allows the 
>>> right to transfer the right to use, presumably, but not necessarily for a 
>>> consideration. Seems to me there is a lot of care exercised to be sure 
>>> that the phrasing does not give even the appearance of sell and buy.
> I agree the text looks like the tortured work of a group nearly evenly split 
> between allowing transfers for money and not allowing them.
> Yes, clearly there is no requirement for payment for transfers.
> But we already have a $7.5 million dollar example of an ARIN-blessed 8.3 
> transfer.
> Which I take to mean that we are already in the trading-for-money world.

When did we leave? I thought I talked to you about drawing conclusions 
from the MS/NN deal.

>>>> The price is the constraint on wasteful use that the needs test used to 
>>>> be.
>>> Would be. Maybe. Among other things. Happy to talk about it.
> OK, my assertion is that holding other conditions constant, raising the price 
> of a commodity leads to more efficient use of it.
> Like, I figure that there is less left uneaten on the plate at Ruth's Chris 
> than there is at Sizzlers, in general, because people don't like to waste 
> expensive things.
> (There must have been some psychological test run at some point to test my 
> hypothesis, I will see if I can find one.)
> (And I suppose the taste of a Ruth's Chris steak is not constant with the 
> taste of a Sizzlers steak.)

And you chide me on my analogy/illustration/metaphor/whositz.

>>>> So maintaining the needs test is not a requirement for stewardship, as 
>>>> other forces outside of our control will work towards the same ends of 
>>>> efficient usage that the needs test was designed to incentivize.
>>> Maybe not, if we were absolutely determined that at all costs the needs 
>>> test had to go. But we have not so determined. You propose that this is 
>>> desireable and are experiencing some discussion. Not everyone agrees.
> I guess I should say if  you accept the general notion that increased value 
> leads to decreased waste,

It might be time to slow here because I don't necessarily accept general 
notions. It is hard to tell the context of this conjecture from the 
proceeding text.

> then address space will trend towards meeting the 
> goal of conservation as it obtains monetary value.

This is almost poetry, and I almost understand what you mean, my soul 
almost begins to soar, but no.

>>>> I think some stewards have gotten it into their heads that their role is 
>>>> to decide the best, or at least better, use of addresses, but I argue 
>>>> that was never a goal of stewardship.
>>> Here again: some stewards _MAY_ be considering that it might be better if 
>>> existing uses of addresses be prefered to proposed and possibly 
>>> undesirable uses. I would think YOU have to justify convincingly the 
>>> advantages of previously prohibited practices, not just assert repeatedly 
>>> those advantages.
> Yes, I agree the proposer of a policy change has the burden of having to 
> justifiably convince others before any change should be effected.

Well, good. I'll just note that Owen disclaims any such getting it into 
their heads.


John Springer

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list