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

[jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com]

Dan,

I appreciate the background.  I think there is a very important
distinction that need be made regarding the community's concern that
stretching the period to five years will result in trading one
underutilized resource holder for another.  The current legacy holders
under contract with IPv4 Market Group will likely "never" utilize these
resources.  The intended recipients however will be classified as either
ISPs or End-users and will definitely utilize the transferred resources
over time or they would not obtain Board approval to spend significant
coin on an IPv4 address block.

Regarding timeframes and reviewing data that illustrates benefits or
consequences, please see my most recent posting.  I have a real concern
that the body of data available for assessment is neither comprehensive
nor focused on dictating success or failure of the current 24 month
justification period.  I would be interested in understanding what data
will be monitored to determine the appropriateness of current policy for
8.3s.

Thanks!

Jeff Mehlenbacher


Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:11:24 +0000
From: "Alexander, Daniel" <Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com>
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based
Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers
Message-ID:
<B64177493F39BA4A81233AA84B50049E5A2BA30E at PACDCEXMB12.cable.comcast.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"

Jeff,

One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3
transfers
claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to use. By
stretching the period to five years, we start trading one underutilized
resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to the claimed
benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who objected to these
transactions.

No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand
the
timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before having any
data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes that have been
made. While I don't claim to know what the magic number should be, I
think
this change would be irresponsible at this time, based only on the
speculations made on this mailing list.

I'm opposed to this proposal.

Dan Alexander
Speaking as myself