[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2014-14, WAS Re: About needs basis in 8.3 transfers
David.Huberman at microsoft.com
Tue Jun 10 00:01:02 EDT 2014
As the OP, yes, I think this has been useful. We have very very low participation but I sincerely thank those who take the time to participate.
I agree with the poster who characterized the debate about needs basis and 8.3 transfers to be two diametrically opposed positions.
But again, I'm not sure 10-15 people on a mailing list is representative of anything. :(
David R Huberman
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 8:28:00 PM
To: Andrew Dul
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2014-14, WAS Re: About needs basis in 8.3 transfers
OP of "[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers", I hope this has
been useful to you. And the speech in Bellevue. As shepherd of 2014-14, I
am less sure of what I may make of it.
It is a lovely philosophical discussion. Clearly an excellent opportunity
for adherents of two diametrically opposed camps to ascend the lofty
pulpit and orate, without the messy necessity of voicing support or
opposition to the Draft Policy that theoretically all of this refers to,
this being a list for the discussion of public policy.
Comments to each of my esteemed collegues below.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Andrew Dul wrote:
> 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.
Not precisely. For unless you are just commenting generally about an
unconnected bunch of opinionating, you are commenting about 2014-14,
which, while it is about "the presence or absence of needs assessment" may
not be relegated to a simplistic gatekeeping function by your merely
stating that it is so. 2014-14 seeks to address a specific issue (transfer
request processing time) that happens to fall within a much larger context
(access to number resource rights). Using one to draw conclusions about
the other runs immediately afoul of the several ergo propter hocs. Unless
you are not referring to 2014-14, in which case carry on, my bad.
>> This is a fairly administrative and technical argument, not a moral one.
Not really. For instance, what argument is that? And I sure thought I read
some moralizing in this long thread which is not invalidated by the
>> Efficiency is the key criterion (not fairness, really).
2014-14 or not, you decide.
>> 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 what context? 2014-14? If so, you're getting way too fancy. IMO, that
is what the proposal author is trying to do, (make the case, not get
fancy). To express support for the DP, (if that's what you are trying to
do), all the double negatives here are kinda confusing. If you are
speaking to an opponent of the DP, they do not in fact have to make the
case as you describe. I sort of have to make the opposite case.
>> 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 said above efficiency and fairness were not really the key criterion,
here you say they are the same (or rather that their opposites are,
which implies...). Which do you mean?
>> 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
Again, if you are trying to help rebut opponents of 2014-14, this is not
their job. The failure to prove the converse leads to status quo. Whomever
you might be addressing with this comment apparently needs no
encouragement to continue to make this exact case at some length. I would
find more useful, comments why this is _NOT_ fair. Call me kooky.
> Thank you for this two paragraph summary of what we are debating here.
So, Andrew. As one shepherd of 2014-14 to another, what are we to do with
"Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers" WRT 2014-14? Are
arguments there able to be applied wholesale to 2014-14, mapping
(divining?) pro-needs basis logic as anti-2014-14 and vice verse? If not,
is it all to be discounted by saying that the authors did not explicitly
express either support or opposition and therefore we are not permitted to
read anything into their statements?
All list posters who posted to "About needs basis in 8.3 transfers", is it
OK to read your minds about this or do you want to come back and state
what you mean clearly in a context that is unambiguous?
> 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?
Excellent question, such commentary would be valuable and welcome, and if
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML