[arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited

[David R Huberman]

Mike,

For clarity, your last question - the final paragraph - what smooth 
section is that?  Existing NRPM 8.5, or 2016-3 without the anti-abuse 
clause?

David


On Fri, 3 Feb 2017, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> I appreciate you trying to make me understand.
>
> So are you assuming in your example that you seek to purchase space that you do not need for your business purposes.
>
> My argument is that organizations do not purchase space for which they don’t feel there is a valid business purpose.  Now it’s true that an organization’s perception of need will vary from the one which is being rigorously defined here, but there is an obvious brake on the purchase of items for which there is not a business purpose.
>
>
>
> And for those whom we are imagining who are determined to somehow go around policy to acquire un-necessary space, there are already plenty of workarounds, the simplest of which is to acquire RIPE space.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something obvious that requires this additional complexity to what was a nice smooth section of the NRPM?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM
> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> Cc: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> I buy a /13. I abuse the spirit of 2016-3, meant for smaller transfers as our first attempt at no needs testing, by reiterating /16 transfers one after the other.
>
>
>
> Market pricing doesn't stop this, and the ARIN community who participates in public policy matters has made it clear that an incremental approach towards needs testing is a good thing.
>
>
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:
>
>
>
> If that approach still doesn't work can you suggest some other mechanism to prevent abuse that does not prevent an organization who needs IP space from using this policy?
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
>
>
> Why are we ignoring the mechanism that prevents organizations from buying un-needed anything? To wit, they have to pay money for these addresses. You guys are spinning up unlikely scenarios and ignoring the 800lb. elephant in the room… the cost of these addresses is the mechanism you seek.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>