<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Scott Leibrand <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><span class=""><div><br></div><div>On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Brian Jones <<a href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu" target="_blank">bjones@vt.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p dir="ltr">Mathew, <br>
I think we are in agreement on some level. I don't want valuable resources to sit idle either. At the same time arbitrarily handing out large blocks of resources without any real show of need allows for possible misuse of the resources by those who would hang on to them to get a better price or for whatever reason they want. </p></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>The IPv4 free pool is now empty, and there are no more large blocks to hand out. Is this still a concern when all blocks must be acquired via transfer? If so, can you explain why that's more of a concern under the proposed policy than under current policy?<span class=""><br></span></div></blockquote><div><br>The "large blocks" reference I used is probably not the appropriate wording, but routed blocks matter
and should be documented appropriately in order to help keep the
Internet routing tables as accurate as possible. I still believe some
show of need should be present. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div><p dir="ltr">Either way the resources sit idle. I am for a reasonable amount of justification for the amount of resources that can be consumed in a reasonable time period. Defining reasonable in the last two sentences and coming to agreement may be the crux of the matter.</p>
<p dir="ltr">If the organization was mistaken about how many or how fast they would use the resources, then the process should be able to easily accommodate transfer, selling, or returning them as long as they follow procedures to ensure that documentation records of the resources can be appropriately updated for the good of the Internet.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In the end there is really not a good way to prevent unused addresses sitting idle. It is up to the recipients of justified resources to be good stewards and use them appropriately and hopefully transfer, sell, or return them if they no longer need them.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>Totally agreed. <span class=""><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-Scott</div></font></span><span class=""><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 20, 2015 9:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <<a href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at" target="_blank">matthew@matthew.at</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>On 8/20/2015 1:04 PM, Brian Jones
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-size:small">I
agree with this simplified requirement but would even be
willing to accept a 50% within 12 months and 75% in 24
months requirement. Two years is a long time to tie up
valuable resources that are not being used. IMHO</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do not understand this reasoning. There is no more free pool. If
Org A is not using "valuable resources" and they are transferred to
Org B who was mistaken about how fast they will use them, then Org B
is also not using "valuable resources". But if instead Org A can't
transfer them, then Org B doesn't get them and Org A still has
"valuable resources" which are "tied up". They're "tied up" not
being used either way... and ARIN can't do anything about it.<br>
<br>
If you really want to make sure that these resources don't sit
unused, make it so that after Org A transfers to Org B then if Org B
doesn't use all of them, Org B can sell what they're not using.<br>
<br>
Matthew Kaufman<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>PPML</span><br><span>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to</span><br><span>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</span><br><span>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</span><br><span><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></span><br><span>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</span></div></blockquote></div></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>