<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>Hi
Matt,</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>I
put my comments below your signature.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>Regards,
</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>Mike</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>See,
this is why I support maintaining the<BR>needs-based decisionmaking around
number<BR>allocations.<BR><BR>Because it's far too easy for a really big
company<BR>with a couple of billion dollars in the bank to decide<BR>that IPv6
is just too hard, and it's easier to buy up<BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>large blocks of IPv4 space, and keep their critical<BR>resources on v4
addresses--which, if those resources<BR></DIV>
<DIV>are crucial enough, could artificially drive up demand<BR>for
IPv4.<BR><BR>Matt<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>Hi Matthew,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>It would be simple to see that somebody
is buying up IPv4 addresses and the price would rise accordingly, thwarting his
plans.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>Anybody engaged in that behavior would
have to first find the sellers, a considerable problem, and impossible to do
silently.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>Then he would have to do hundreds and
hundreds of transactions, which would take a long time and everybody would see
it in the public transfer lists posted by the RIRs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>Worldwide there have been less than 1500
transfers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>My rough number is about 24 million
total addresses have been bought or sold since 2010, leaving out intra-company
transfers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>You seem to think there is somebody,
somewhere you can tap on the shoulder and offer a couple of billion and he can
transfer hundreds of millions of addresses to you. Without the needs test,
you can be sure every transfer will be booked and visible, unlike those
transfers driven underground by the needs test. That visibility, and innate
seller fragmentation, is our protection against this kind of scheme.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>IMO, the mobile phone operators are not
going to invest and risk billions of dollars on a reputationally dangerous ploy
like this. Instead they simply appropriate some DoD space and run CGN. Or they
could turn on IPv6, which is not “hard” but which is fruitless in today’s
Internet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>Although we may not agree on the risks
here, are you in agreement that limiting needs-free transfers to one /16 per
year per registrant would effectively obviate the fears of the activity you
describe?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3" face=Calibri>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="size: 3"
face=Calibri>Mike</FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>