[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Robert E. Seastrom
> <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:
>>
>> <jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com> writes:
>>
>>> Owen, I'm not certain it's entirely relevant to reflect upon one's
>>> own ability to plan for 5 years and then assert that no one else could
>>> possibly do so either.  Nor is it terribly compelling to apply hindsight
>>> as a reason to dismiss future planning.  The majority of interested
>>> buyers we converse with do enjoy 3 to 5 year strategic plans and thus
>>> have interest in acquiring block sizes conducive to meeting components
>>> of those plans.  Will their plans change over five years?  Of course,
>>> but that is nature of business.  Recognizing that internal and external
>>> changes are inevitable is not a reason to dismiss long term planning.
>>> If you are suggesting that we revert back to 12 months based on your
>>> personal perception of what can be justified by each and every ISP and
>>> End-User business in the ARIN region, finding common ground on an
>>> appropriate increase from 24 months is doubtful.
>>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> Since you bring up "common ground", I'd like to remind you that the 24
>> months in 2011-12 was a compromise position that modified the text (12
>> months) in 2011-11.  There were others calling for 36 months at the time.
>>
>> Both 2011-11 and 2011-12 have been active since February 10th 2012.
>>
>> Frankly, I think attempts to extend the horizon are premature.
>>
>> Oppose as written.
>
> 36 months is common ground from my perspective when you consider that
> there are still people who want way more than that :).

Can we then expect another series of "common ground" compromise
proposals to move from 60 to 96 months, to 180 months so long as
someone is suggesting that on the basis of a 30 year mortgage it is in
fact possible to have a 360 month plan?

Continue to be opposed as written.  Also, planning on not replying
further in this thread myself as I've made my position known and
reasonable people may disagree.  Followups from other interested folks
highly encouraged.

-r