[arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 14:45 , Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
>  
> As far as I know, Ripe does not require that, only addresses sourced in ARIN or APNIC require a needs test at RIPE.

My understanding is that 50% within 5 years is required on all RIPE NCC allocations.

RIPE NCC does not do assignments, they farm those out through “sponsoring LIRs”.

> And thank you for demonstrating  yet again that you are basing these policy decisions on a fear of market manipulation.

No, I am stating that market manipulation is one valid consideration in these policy decisions.

> You ignored the various reasons why we do not have to fear this, and the absence of evidence of such attempts.

No, I didn’t ignore it, I rebutted your claim that it was nonexistent.

> Can you present any evidence of IPv4 transfer market manipulation or speculation that does not involve free-pool plundering?

No, but I can’t tell you what was on the missing seconds of tape from Watergate, either. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence or absence.

> I think that if we are bound to clutter the NRPM over these fears, some evidence should be forthcoming.

I don’t feel that the NRPM is cluttered, nor do I feel that these concerns are the only reason these are reasonable protections to preserve.

> After all, we are the stakeholders who have some control over the situation and certainly would have time to erect one of these policy barriers in the case that such evidence arose. 

That’s laughable… It generally takes at least a year for anything with any controversy at all to go from proposal to submission to the board for ratification. Then it’s usually a month or two for ratification and another 6 months or more for implementation. In addition to that, given the likely mechanisms at work in such a scheme, it would be unlikely that we would see evidence, per se, before it was too late to really do anything effective.

Owen

>  
> Regards,
> Mike
>  
>  
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 5:26 PM
> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>>
> Cc: David Huberman <daveid at panix.com <mailto:daveid at panix.com>>; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
>  
> No, Mike, You are missing that “an organization’s business purpose” may be something other than “running an operational network”.
>  
> We are attempting to ensure that the addresses go to those who intend to use them in an operational network, rather than treating them as a commodity futures investment, speculative transaction, or other financial manipulation at the expense of the internet.
>  
> Even RIPE requires you to use at least half of the addresses on an operational network.
>  
> Owen
>  
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:53 , Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> 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 <mailto:daveid at panix.com>] 
>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM
>> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>>
>> Cc: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com <mailto:jschiller at google.com>>; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto: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
>>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto: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/20170206/34ec8c56/attachment.htm>