<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2011-1: GLOBALLY COORDINATEDTRANSFER POLICY (Legecy space)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Milton,<BR>
How do you feel about the Constitution? 200+ years old...lots of things have changed since that was written....is it too irrelevant because its old..or are the principles upon which it was written still as pertinent today as ever?<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Owen DeLong<BR>
Sent: Tue 4/12/2011 12:40 AM<BR>
To: Milton L Mueller<BR>
Cc: John Curran; ARIN-PPML List<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2011-1: GLOBALLY COORDINATEDTRANSFER POLICY (Legecy space)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Apr 11, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>> Milton -<BR>
>><BR>
>> What is your basis for this assertion? ('"needs based" does<BR>
>> not and cannot work when there is no free pool')<BR>
><BR>
> Very simple, really. If there is no free pool you can have N number of claimants who can prove "need" for a resource, whereas there are only enough resources to fulfill N-X of those claims.<BR>
> By virtue of that fact, the ultimate allocation is based not on need but on something else: competitive bidding, lottery, political pull, whatever.<BR>
><BR>
Not necessarily true.<BR>
<BR>
Let's say that you have Y resources and Y+X requestors for Y resources.<BR>
<BR>
Let's say that X of the Y+X requestors cannot demonstrate need. Q.E.D. the remaining Y requestors<BR>
that can demonstrate need receive resources based on need.<BR>
<BR>
Now, looking at a more realistic example, you are almost correct. Need can no longer be the sole criteria<BR>
by which resources are allocated, but, it never was. As long as there is a free pool, allocations are based<BR>
on justified need in the order request submissions are completed. (The completion of a submission is<BR>
a little more complex than merely the initial submission because if the RIR has to go through one or more<BR>
rounds of requests for additional information, you don't head-block the queue).<BR>
<BR>
So, there is no reason that requestors without need cannot continue to be eliminated from the queue just<BR>
as is done today. True, the entire queue can no longer be served instantly. I don't see anything wrong with<BR>
continuing to serve the queue in the order of arrival with the people who can't show justified need<BR>
being dropped from the queue.<BR>
<BR>
How is that any less valid than competitive bidding, lottery, political pull, or any other system?<BR>
<BR>
> The immediate point is that it makes little sense to invoke RFC 2050 in the current environment as if it were decisive.<BR>
><BR>
I completely disagree. I think the above shows that the complete RFC 2050 (of which justified need is only one<BR>
facet and sequentiality is another, previously moot facet) works perfectly well even after we no longer have a<BR>
free pool.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> The other problem is that the meaning of need changes under scarcity. Operator A could claim they "need" a /16, someone else could claim that A really only needs a /24 if they reconfigure their network or use NAT. What you think you need often depends on what you have to pay.<BR>
><BR>
I don't think that the meaning of need changes under scarcity. I think that there may be more interest in arguing over the meaning of need<BR>
and more pressure to use alternative conservation techniques, but, the meaning of need itself does not change.<BR>
<BR>
As far as I am concerned, any need you can justify in a situation where NAT did not exist remains a valid need. After all, if it didn't,<BR>
then, why would you get so many IPv6 addresses under a needs basis policy?<BR>
<BR>
>> Are you actually suggesting that a market simply cannot work<BR>
>> if there are conditions on who can participate? It would be<BR>
>> useful if you could cite a reference for this to help educate<BR>
>> others.<BR>
><BR>
> Markets are not purely dichotomous, either working perfectly or not working at all. Sure, you can have a very constrained, expensive and thin market for a few players. But if one discovers most of the trades going outside of that constrained market it tells you that willing buyers and willing sellers prefer to go elsewhere, and possibly there's something wrong with the "conditions"<BR>
><BR>
1. I don't think that requiring need to receive resources will decrease the size<BR>
of the market or the number of participating sellers.<BR>
<BR>
Decreasing buyers generally places deflationary pressure on markets, not<BR>
inflationary.<BR>
<BR>
2. There are going to be plenty of people needing address space and there is<BR>
no benefit to the market to be gained by opening it to purchasers without<BR>
need for the product.<BR>
<BR>
3. I think the risks associated with trading outside of the market far exceed the<BR>
benefit to any but those players that are already trying to get addresses outside<BR>
of the RIR system because they do not have legitimate qualification even while<BR>
there is still a free pool.<BR>
<BR>
I see no benefit to the community from making it easier for those parties to<BR>
obtain addresses once they are harder to come by.<BR>
<BR>
Owen<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>