<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 4, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>On May 3, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I do not see how someone can operate a business that will still need IPv4 addresses in order to function and yet be limited to only getting three months at a time via transfer when their competitors are allowed to get 12 months at a time via transfer.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sure... back when there was a free pool, making them jump through the extra hoops every 3 months to show that they're doing the right thing makes (some) sense... but once there isn't, every time they get space might be their last.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>I don't see how someone can expect to operate a business that will still need additional IPv4 addresses.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>So then why do you care what the needs criteria is for IPv4?</div><div><br></div><div>For the next several years there will be businesses, existing and new, that will need IPv4 addresses in order to be reachable on the IPv4 Internet. There are addresses out there, that for enough money people would take the time to part with in order to fulfill the requirements during these next several years. Your position is that we should make it as unfair as possible to as many people as possible who might be on the "need" side of this equation, as far as I can tell.</div><div><br></div><div>Matthew Kaufman</div></body></html>