[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)
owen at delong.com
Thu Jun 20 08:32:14 EDT 2013
On Jun 19, 2013, at 4:04 PM, "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> You began this discussion some time ago with a policy proposal which attempted to remove needs basis, was soundly rejected by the community, and which you backed off to the same compromise you are again proposing now. The community didn't want any part of it back then. At the time, there was no interest in continuing the discussion and the proposal was abandoned.
> Hi Owen,
> Just to be accurate, my proposal was never abandoned and is in fact section 8.3 of the NRPM.
True, 2012-1 was adopted, however, by the time that happened, none of the issues we are discussing here were still part of the proposal text.
The relevant subject was, in fact, dropped from the proposal, or, effectively abandoned due to community feedback.
> Although mostly a rewording of the original 8.3, it did originally call for removing the needs test for transfers but added a 12 month exclusion period between the free pool and the transfer pool, whose purpose was to protect the free pool from those who would repeatedly sell their allocations just to get another from ARIN.
Right… In other words, the removal of restrictions was dropped and the enhanced restrictions were retained. Pretty much the opposite of what you are arguing for here.
> This was my attempt to reconcile the existence of a profit motive in transfers that should not be present for free pool addresses. In the end I reluctantly removed any limit on needs testing from my policy so that it could be passed in conjunction with the Inter-regional transfer policy, which otherwise would have exposed the ARIN free pool to the aforementioned sell, repeat cycle.
I don't entirely agree. The original 2009-1 did provide some safeguards for that, but I do agree that what was left of 2012-1 was an improvement.
> So I dropped the needs test exclusion in favor of opening the global transfer market, not because I came to the realization that I was tilting at windmills with the ARIN policy development community.
I never claimed you were tilting at windmills. I pointed out that your current argument isn't new and has been repeatedly rejected by the community before.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML