[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jun 5, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/5/2014 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> IPv4 runout certainly changes the need for policy that attempts to preserve fairness in how addresses are distributed *from the ARIN free pool*. Or at least makes any such policy irrelevant unless/until more free pool is generated for IPv4.

I don't believe that's all that current policy seeks to do. Current policy seeks fairness in who receives IP number resources, whether from the free pool or via transfer.

I believe that the fairness in the receipt of resources remains the same regardless of the source of the resources. Clearly you don't agree and that's fine.

> The means by which ARIN ensures "fairness" when allocating from the free pool are necessarily quite different than any means by which ARIN might ensure "fairness" when private parties are making agreements to exchange the right to current or future use of address space for money.

I disagree completely.

> Even if there are such means, expecting the *same* policy and mechanisms to have an identical effect in both cases is foolhardy, in my opinion.

And we can agree to disagree about this, but it does not mean that I have not considered the future context just because I came to a different conclusion than you have.

> If you *really* wanted ARIN to be able to use the same policy, we should give ARIN enough money that it could incent current holders to return their space to the free pool, then allocate from the newly refilled pool to exactly the "right" people (those who most fit the established "fair" need-based policies).

I proposed this, actually, some time ago and it was very quickly shouted down.

> Or of course tell people to get IPv6 addresses and figure IPv4 is going to get pretty ugly no matter what.

Which I think is a pretty good summary of what I've been doing for the last 6+ years.

Owen