<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I am in total agreement with your sentiment and the requirement for a circuit should continue to stand.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Any policy that removes such a requirement would render the management of Internet Number Resources by the registry useless and thereby essentially lead to no need for the registry after all.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Noah<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Noah,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Are you aware that there has been no needs-test for RIPE transfers for many years and the RIR system hasn’t collapsed?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To make it clear, in RIPE you can purchase address space with the sole purpose of leasing it out. And you have been able to do that for many years now. Plainly, openly, within all policy. So please let us know where to send the flowers for RIPE’s funeral. That goes for others who predict that bad things will follow from adopting this policy, please keep RIPE’s example in mind to provide a reality check. The experiment has already been performed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Owen has already pointed out the futility of the circuit requirement in practice, yet you think that’s what keeps the RIR system functional?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy means the only lessors are the lucky incumbents. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy means a lack of policy is preferred, despite the open practice of leasing.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy provides incentive for registry-shopping and address outflow.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool and drives up lease rates.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes accurate registration.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Let me know if any of these assertions require amplification, I guess some may not be clear but this is already too long.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<br>Mike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>