[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Jun 5 13:16:15 EDT 2013


So, rather than mute this thread, I'd like to attempt to redirect the
discussion back to the stated subject.

It seems that we need to focus on the set of principles that are missing
from 2050bis and have a clear consensus among the community.

For supporters of 2013-4, I would love to hear which goals you feel are
missing from rfc2050bis (
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-rfc2050bis/?include_text=1).
 I see significant overlap between what's listed there and the original
2013-4 text.  If we could focus more narrowly on what is actually missing
from there, I think we could usefully constrain the debate and get to
consensus more easily.

For opponents of the current 2013-4 text, I would love to hear whether
there are any elements of 2013-4 (or the original RFC 2050) that are
missing from rfc2050bis and would be good to document.

-Scott


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Paul Vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:

>
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>  My perception is that the ARIN community is strongly biased to support
> needs basis and there is a very vocal minority trying to eliminate it so that
> they can create a market they can profit by.  I don't read the opposition to
>
> The public interest case for eliminating needs basis is very clear.
>
>
> quite to the contrary: it's nothing like clear.
>
>  The feeling is that bureaucratic needs assessments introduce significant friction into the transfer process, ...
>
>
> i'm very interested in any objective documented facts, such as statements
> by someone who needed addresses who could not acquire them due to friction
> such as you describe. otherwise it's just a "feeling" as you call it, and
> has no role in policy debate.
>
>
>  making it more difficult for addresses to shift from people with a surplus to people who actually need them.
>
>
> it seems to me that until the ARIN free pool gets emptier, people who need
> addresses will find that applying for greenfield addresses since that's
> cheaper than the transfer market. if that's so, then any "difficulty" at
> the moment is presumptive.
>
>
>  It is the current system that is characterized by hoarding, not a freer market.
>
>  is it the difficulty encountered by surplus-holders, rather than
> encountered by address-needers, that you're concerned about? if so, why?
> the internet's address registry system is designed to promote network
> expansion. nothing you've described is preventing that.
>
> all of us who lived through enron's monetization of electricity demand
> during a deregulation experiment in california back in Y2K or so -- which
> was an extremely free market! -- will continue to worry about numers
> resource transfers toward entities who don't need those resources for their
> own network expansion.
>
> paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130605/0986dc4e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list