<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/4/2012 6:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<br>
<div>
<div>On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jmaimon@chl.com">jmaimon@chl.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">...<br>
<br>
The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an
allocation pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible,
since it is certain not to last long enough.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the
free pool last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate
uses of the address space today is not a win and is contrary to
ARIN's mission statement, IMHO.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
i've now sat with several arin members who have told me privately
that their business needs for ipv4 growth are measured in
half-decades not years, and so they were optioning future address
space through a grayish transfer market even before arin went to a
three month regime. i say "grayish" because the option agreements
are a private matter not subject to arin rules, and the space in
question will inevitably be transferred to the recipient upon
demonstrable need. i've been told that the directed transfer rule
whereby resources can be transferred between parties without first
returning it to arin and then reallocating it, was the only
instrument they needed.<br>
<br>
to me this says arin has a workable system even at three months, and
that unless this community chose to forego any needs basis at all,
there is no way to ensure that addresses are available to those
whose real demonstrated need -- which will be demonstrated in terms
of capital for the network and also capital for the options and
ultimately the resources.<br>
<br>
this community has reached consensus on three month allocation
windows. that consensus could be changed by debate. i welcome such
debate.<br>
<br>
but in no sense is non-needs-based allocation (within the
community's chosen window, currently of three months) definitionally
a "legitimate" use, such that "disadvantaging" such use is "not a
win". nor would any of us enjoy an internet in which policies of
this kind are set in any way other than by community consensus.<br>
<br>
paul<br>
</body>
</html>