<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2412E2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I would have to oppose most of the statements in this proposed revision of the RIR principles. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
noting, first, that the author has clarified his intent -- documenting
current principles in the impending absence of rfc 2050, not revising
any principles per se. (i support that goal.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2412E2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
Policy Statement:
Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System
0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)
</pre></blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This represents confused thinking. Conservation as a principle does NOT necessarily mean needs-based allocation. There are many ways to conserve number resources without the fiction of technical needs assessment. For example, pricing or fees graduated to the number of addresses used is a form of conservation. Market trading, in which you bid a scarcity-based price for number blocks, is a form of conservation.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
i'm not ready to hear arin's current technical needs assessment called a
"fiction". if you really think this, then you should address it
directly, not as a cheap shot buried in a policy debate.<br>
<br>
other methods of conservation may be acceptable to ARIN, and could be
proposed. note that market trading is likely to be seen as controversial
and not as a restatement of current policy.<span style="font-family:
monospace;"><br>
<br>
also:<br>
<br>
</span><span><br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2412E8E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: monospace;">... </span>the
consensus within the RIPE APWG is pretty clearly in favor of the no
need proposal, and the topic is highly controversial even within the
ARIN region.</blockquote>
<br>
i think consensus could have been called either way after the ripe
discussion.<br>
<br>
paul<br>
</span>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2412E2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
</blockquote>
</body></html>