[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Owen DeLong]

>> 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.

Personally, I don't believe that IPv4 runout changes the need for policy that attempts to preserve fairness in how addresses are (re)distributed. I realize and respect that you disagree with this. However, my analysis of the continued need for this policy is not based on the context of ARIN still having IPv4. Obviously I can't authoritatively comment on anyone else's perspective and neither can you.

>>> 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.

Fair enough, but as in any policy process, at the end of the day, decisions are made by those who show up. Anyone with an Email address (which I would argue is potentially > IPv4 users as it could include IPv6-only users and users of other networks) can participate in the policy process if they choose to. Attempting to make an argument based on your position being supposedly supported by anonymous masses who have not chosen to participate in the process is fallacious at best and I do not find it convincing or give it any weight.

>>> 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.

When you claimed that I said "...because current policy...", that's exactly what you did because I never made that argument. The argument I made was that each and every time this has been discussed in the last 5 years (and there have been many such events), the community has overwhelmingly expressed support for needs basis being preserved.

> 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.

Meh... I don't consider my position particularly hardened. If a compelling argument to the contrary is presented, I am willing to change my position. So far, none of the arguments presented has been compelling or even new compared to the same ones that have lost each and every time they were presented over the last five years.

Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent. I don't consider this personal.

Owen