[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Andrew Dul]

On 6/6/2014 8:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> All we are debating is the presence or absence of needs assessment as a gatekeeping function for that market. 
> This is a fairly administrative and technical argument, not a moral one. Efficiency is the key criterion (not fairness, really). If you support needs assessments you have to make a case that the costs and burdens associated with it are justified by quantifiable benefits. In this case, inefficiency is unfairness: if the needs assessment process prevents resources from going where they are wanted most, or if the cost burdens associated with the process exceed the value of the numbers acquired for small operators, or if it is shown that large, established companies with well-established relationships to ARIN can navigate the process more easily, then there are signs that needs assessment is unfair because of its inefficiencies.
>
> You have to do a better job of explaining why it is "fair" to force a willing seller and a willing buyer to submit to an additional step when that step both limits the quantity of resources available for transfer and raises the cost of participating in the market by a substantial degree. 
>
Milton,

Thank you for this two paragraph summary of what we are debating here. 

Are there, in your opinion, any reasonable "steps" (e.g. policy
elements) that the registry community should implement as policy between
a buyer and a seller that are not the "existing traditional needs
assessment" which would provide a benefit to the IPv4 market and
Internet community as a whole?

Andrew