[arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Fri Aug 21 10:55:57 EDT 2015
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu> wrote:
> I think we are in agreement on some level. I don't want valuable resources to sit idle either. At the same time arbitrarily handing out large blocks of resources without any real show of need allows for possible misuse of the resources by those who would hang on to them to get a better price or for whatever reason they want.
The IPv4 free pool is now empty, and there are no more large blocks to hand out. Is this still a concern when all blocks must be acquired via transfer? If so, can you explain why that's more of a concern under the proposed policy than under current policy?
> Either way the resources sit idle. I am for a reasonable amount of justification for the amount of resources that can be consumed in a reasonable time period. Defining reasonable in the last two sentences and coming to agreement may be the crux of the matter.
> If the organization was mistaken about how many or how fast they would use the resources, then the process should be able to easily accommodate transfer, selling, or returning them as long as they follow procedures to ensure that documentation records of the resources can be appropriately updated for the good of the Internet.
> In the end there is really not a good way to prevent unused addresses sitting idle. It is up to the recipients of justified resources to be good stewards and use them appropriately and hopefully transfer, sell, or return them if they no longer need them.
>> On Aug 20, 2015 9:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>>> On 8/20/2015 1:04 PM, Brian Jones wrote:
>>> I agree with this simplified requirement but would even be willing to accept a 50% within 12 months and 75% in 24 months requirement. Two years is a long time to tie up valuable resources that are not being used. IMHO
>> I do not understand this reasoning. There is no more free pool. If Org A is not using "valuable resources" and they are transferred to Org B who was mistaken about how fast they will use them, then Org B is also not using "valuable resources". But if instead Org A can't transfer them, then Org B doesn't get them and Org A still has "valuable resources" which are "tied up". They're "tied up" not being used either way... and ARIN can't do anything about it.
>> If you really want to make sure that these resources don't sit unused, make it so that after Org A transfers to Org B then if Org B doesn't use all of them, Org B can sell what they're not using.
>> Matthew Kaufman
>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML