[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Mon Jun 9 21:23:23 EDT 2014

Hi Milton,

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> This debate has descended into rather nasty and unconstructive name calling. So if I am not mistaken with the attribution here, we have Woodcock calling Huberman 'idiotic,' a devotee of Ayn Rand (how did she get in here?), the moral equivalent of a slave trader, and a self-indulgent non-adult.
> May I ask that this stop?
> Bill, the entire community has already recognized the legitimacy of markets for IPv4 numbers. Transfer markets are institutionalized and have been for 4 years. So any argument that is based on comparing it to the slave/drug trade is gone.
> 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.

Is it the case that those support the status quo need to make a case
to keep the status quo, or is it the case that those who seek change
need to convince the rest of the community that those changes are
justified?  The latter has not been done IMHO.

> In this case, inefficiency is unfairness: if the needs assessment process prevents resources from going where they are wanted most,

ummmm, of course a "needs" assessment will prevent "want" from being
fulfilled.  it won't prevent "need" from being fulfilled however, or
at least, it should not.

 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.

How much is a "substantial degree"?  Is it like "how long is a piece of string?"


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list