[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justificationon 8.3 Specified Transfers

[Milton L Mueller]

Astrodog:
You have to realize that statements like Riske's are religious incantations, not arguments. 
That most of the people on this list keep repeating these incantations, even when confronted with the fact that 40%+ of the v4 address space is legacy and not under contract to ARIN - and thus can ALREADY be re-allocated through the market REGARDLESS of ARIN needs assessments - should make it clear that the dialogue is fundamentally disconnected from reality. This is about faith, not reason; about a shrinking community bonding with each other, not about policy making.

Anyway, a tip of the hat to the proponents of ARIN-prop-165 for their effort; you showed a touching faith in the RIR policy making process. This has been tried several times before, the result is always the same: the sheep start bleating "needs assessment good, markets bad" and, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, the discussion ends. 

Ciao.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Astrodog
> 
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Ryan Riske
> <rriske at visionfinancialmarkets.com> wrote:
> > I also vote against prop 165 as written and in spirit.  Needs-based
> > justification keeps the field level for all players, and is important
> > to prevent speculation, hoarding, and other anti-competitive and
> > anti-community behaviors.
> >
> 
> Something is being missed here that I think is significant. The current
> system does not keep the field level for all players. It rewards players
> which are better at interpreting and writing their justification to
> exactly what ARIN requires, or who have proposed uses more in line with
> what is expected. While this is easier to do with actual need, that is
> not actually required. A large number of organizations can meet the
> letter of the rules for an allocation, but have no real use for the
> address space currently. This results in those organizations requesting
> more space than they will actually use, simply to avoid fighting with it
> again later. If those organizations knew that there was an easy way to
> obtain and release address space as required, they would be inclined to
> sell address space they are not currently using, knowing that new space
> could be acquired at a later date. This would serve to keep their
> allocation in line with their needs.
> 
> I think a big part of stewardship of the IPv4 space, as it nears
> exhaustion, is ensuring that organizations that have more space than
> they need can easily transfer that space to another organization that
> will use it, and has a financial incentive to do so. Otherwise, the only
> way to claim this space is for ARIN to audit these organizations, and do
> something along the lines of revoking the allocation. The needs test
> creates a regulatory hurdle for organizations, making them much less
> likely to attempt to transfer.
> 
> Keep in mind that in as far as speculation goes, the value of IPv4
> addresses will, over the long term, trend to 0. There would be a very
> real risk in cornering the market that one would instead speed the
> migration to IPv6, and greatly reduce the value of the address space.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.