[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[John Santos]

(Something strange about the quoting below.  I think Steven wrote the
stuff with one ">" and Larry wrote the unquoted lines.)

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 lar at mwtcorp.net wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 16:07:21 +0000
  Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> And your statement to me sounds like the haves trying to make it harder
> for the have nots, so that it is harder for the have
> nots to compete with the haves.  The current ARIN policies are stacked
> against a small organization trying to compete with larger
> ones for resources.  In my opinion that is very anti-competitive and I
> defy you to show me where in the ARIN mission statement et
> al it says that that ARIN should make it harder for a small organization
> just starting out to get resources than larger ones.  I
> repeat that ARIN's mission is to allocate resources and it isn't to find
> way not to allocate resources!!! 

Personally I suspect that without needs testing the "haves" would have had
it all a long time ago. 

I have felt the same frustration, as a small provider, trying to meet the
80% requirement can be almost impossible without gaming the system due to
numerous small holes in a small allocation. That said, I worry about any
company that could purchase a couple of Billion dollars of IPV4. I think I
could make a stronger business case for that than some of the
purchases/mergers that have happened over the last 10 years. 

I've hoped that IPV6 would eliminate that possibility but so far that
hasn't happened. 

I live in a place where there is very little use of much of the licensed
radio spectrum. Yet there is none available. Big players have snatched it
up to keep from the others. They use it just enough to say they did and
then hundreds of miles from here. 

Many of us fear that if need is not considered in the transfer market the
little guys will find that none is available at any price. 

Like it or not the big guys have an advantage. Let's make sure that
"cornering the market" isn't one of them. 

-----

+1 deregulating a market rarely helps the have-nots.  It usually just 
helps the "haves" to have more.

I don't think eliminating the needs requirement would help Steven and
other small operators; I think it would make address space unacquirable
at a reasonable cost.  (Unless there's a secret agenda at work to
promote IPv6 :-)

Steven, are you the person who has proffered the notion of "right-sizing"
as an alternative to needs testing?  I think the determination of the
right size to allocate to an organization is exactly what needs testing
should do.  If you (or anyone else) has specific examples of how needs
testing as currently implemented fails to accomplish this, then I would
be interested in any proposals to fix needs testing to do it right.
(There have been many such proposals in the past and many of them have
been adopted.)  


-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539