[arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

[Owen DeLong]

> On May 12, 2016, at 14:34 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> 
>  
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>
>> Milton, 
>> 
>> Despite your continued assertion of this position, no, there are a number of us who believe that needs assessment remains valid in the absence of a free pool as a mechanism to ensure that resources are not going to organizations without need.
>  
> You and others may believe that, but as far as I know, nobody has produced evidence that shows that needs assessment in fact provides that mechanism. Whereas there is significant evidence that - despite needs assessment continuing to be supported as policy - resources are in fact being locked up by organizations that do not meet the NRPM needs test (both existing organizations that no longer meet it, and therefore have addresses for sale - and organizations which are using mechanisms outside of transfer to assure that their longer-term future needs will be adequately met.)

Noone denies that bad actors can be bad actors in a system which is 100% dependent on voluntary compliance.

The question is whether you abandon all hope of useful policy in favor of accepting those actions or you continue to hope that the majority of people will act honestly within the system and according to the guidelines developed by the consensus of the community.

>> While it is clear you do not perceive this as necessary, it does not make everyone who disagrees with you inherently wrong, nor does it indicate that we are disconnected from reality.
>  
> Until evidence is provided that the needs assessment that you and others so vehemently argue to continue as policy does in fact perform the function that you claim it does at this point in the IPv4 lifecycle, I will continue to take that as an indication that you are "disconnected from reality", as you put it.

While it does not perform that function 100% effectively, as no policy in our entire system can be 100% effective so long as there are bad actors willing to circumvent that policy and we ave no enforcement mechanism, it is at least as effective as any other policy in the NRPM.

I suppose you can claim that attempting to have community developed policy without an enforcement mechanism is somehow disconnected from reality, but if that is the case, then, your argument is that the entire multi-stakeholder process and NRPM are disconnected from reality. You’re welcome to make that argument, but if you wish to do so, I would suggest you will find a more sympathetic audience in the ITU.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160512/f4dfea48/attachment.htm>