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

[Alyssa Moore]

Thanks for that thoughtful response and recap, Jason. I really appreciate
it.

I agree with Bruce that 2015-3 helps the little guy (coming from a 'little
guy' myself) in that the 30 days is onerous, however at the other end of
the spectrum this could end up hurting the little guy unable to pay for
space at inflated prices, if the, uhh, speculation re: speculation proves
true.

While, as Scott mentioned, 2015-3 does not represent full elimination of
needs assessment and arguments to that end fall prey to the slippery slope
fallacy, it does relax needs assessment. Or at least* perceived *needs
assessment under the current operational practices re: transfers at the 30
day mark.

I agree with Jason that the current policy is not no-op, even without staff
checking up at 30 days, so long as the possibility of one committing fraud
by non-compliance is present.

At this time, I support the removal of the 30 days provision, but would
like to see another mechanism for limiting overly optimistic transfers.

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> > On May 16, 2016, at 10:36 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> If we eliminate needs assessment, what mechanism assures that the
> transferee
> >> is actually a network operator?
> >
> > This, to my mind is the central question.  Do we, as a community want
> > to allocate/assign resources to folks who will speculate in address
> > resources for fun and profit or not?
>
> I don't think the implications of full elimination of needs assessment are
> on topic for this thread. If anyone  believes that ARIN-2015-3 would allow
> organizations who do not operate a network and do not have any need for
> addresses to acquire them for speculative purposes, I think they are
> mistaken, so I would need to see a lot more justification to consider that
> as a valid last call objection to 2015-3. As Jason mentioned, this proposal
> relaxes needs requirements somewhat, but does not eliminate them.
>
> -Scott
>
> >
> >
> > Further, how does it in any way assure that
> >> the transfer is from a place of less need to a place of greater need
> rather
> >> than a place of limited need to a place of greater monetary resources?
> >
> >
> > it does not.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > McTim
> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > 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:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160517/9dd13162/attachment.htm>