[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assignments

[Owen DeLong]

Mike,

You misunderstood (or at least mischaracterized) my statement.

I did not say that needs testing doesn’t protect the free pool. Indeed, it is one of the things that protects the free pool from being drained to the benefit of organizations without need. However, what I said was that protecting the free pool was not its only purpose.

Owen

On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> Hi Owen,
> 
> "Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool. If that were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies to needs testing."
> 
> Prior to the 12 month waiting period for transfers which was implemented in 2012, needs testing was *indeed* required to save the remaining free pool. Otherwise applicants would receive an allocation, sell it to re-establish their need, and get another allocation.  No bogus ORGs needed. Even before addresses could be openly sold, needs testing of transfers was required to avoid the draining of the free pool through needs-based allocations, then transfers to a non-needing party, rinse and repeat. This is why I believe needs testing was applied to transfers in RFC2050, not due to any principle which required registry stewards to arbitrate transfers in the absence of a free pool and the presence of a natural conserving factor- price.
> 
> I am opposed to 2014-18. Now that the minimums have dropped to /24, one of the barriers to very small applicants has been removed. Although I am against need-testing of transfers, I am in favor of continued needs-testing free pool allocations, even the lowly /24s.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
> 
> 
>