[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 6/5/2014 10:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>
>> On 6/4/14, 4:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> Matthew Kaufman
>>>>
>>>> ps. I'd also note that "policy that expresses the general intent of the community" may in fact *be* policy that lets post-runout transfers be performed without a needs test, as "the community" consists of a lot more than "Owen”.
>>> Indeed, it does. However, many people have also repeatedly stood up in defense of needs basis, so singling me out as if I am the lone supporter of preserving needs basis is as specious as many of your other arguments.
>>>
>> Wasn't to single you out, but was meant to call attention to an argument that says "in addition to it being how I feel, that's what the community wants [as proven by the existence of current policy]" But we should be clear... the policy as written in the PPML today may or may not be "policy that expresses the general intent of the community”.
> Funny, I don’t remember making that argument. Yes, I said “that’s what the community wants”, but I never said “as proven by the existence of current policy”. What I will say is that the combination of the current policy and the community response each and every time this has been regurgitated in yet another policy proposal since 8.3 was first put in place seems to reflect an intent by the community to preserve the needs test in policy in some form at least pretty close to what it is today.

And until ARIN actually runs out of IPv4, we're going to see the needs 
test analyzed in the context of ARIN still having IPv4. No surprise that 
the arguments haven't changed.

>
>> In fact, I would argue that it isn't.
>>
>> For starters, most of "the community" isn't participating in the PDP at all.
> Because most of the community is tired of repeating the same debate about the same proposal under a different title over and over again.

Most of the community who is actually on this list, perhaps. But I was 
speaking of a much much larger community. IPv4 users >> IPv4 holders >> 
PPML subscribers >> PPML posters.

>
>> And secondly, for a policy that the community likes, we sure have a lot of fairly significant changes queued up.
> Almost all of which were submitted by a single individual.
>
>> In summary, I don't think it is appropriate to back up any argument for or against a policy change with "but that's what the current policy says, therefore everyone else already agrees with me”.
> Which is not at all what I did. It’s also not appropriate to put words in my mouth.

Sorry if that's how you believe that was interpreted.

At least we all have hardened positions and well-practiced arguments and 
are starting to offend one another regularly now. Good to have that all 
out of the way before run-out actually occurs.

Matthew Kaufman