[arin-ppml] Fwd: ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification

[Keith W. Hare]

Matthew,

To me, your arguments sound like another round of the "legacy resource holders are evil because ____" arguments that have popped up on the ARIN lists every so often since I've been subscribed.

When we obtained our class C (now /24) assignment 20 years ago, we had to specify what we needed. This was a pretty simple question at that point -- the options were A, B, or C. At the time, we thought a C was sufficient but if we'd had a better understanding of where computing was going, I'm pretty sure we could have justified a B.

So, I guess this time, as a legacy resource holder, I'm evil because we got our assignment when the criteria was much simpler.

And, for the record, I oppose Prop 165 and any other attempt to eliminate Needs Based Justification on either new allocations or section 8.whatever transfers.

I guess that puts me in the "old boy's club" with "wealth and power and prestige", although our swath of IPv4 space is not that large.

As far as I can tell, everyone who has IPv4 address space had to do some level of justification. Your argument really is that the justification criteria have changed over the last twenty years, so you would either like everyone to meet today's criteria or go back to the twenty year old "this is what I think I need" criteria.

Perhaps I'm dense, but I still don't understand how having to adhere to today's justification criteria discriminates against you. Exactly what is it that requiring a needs justification is preventing you from doing?

Keith Hare