<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-size:10.0pt;
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><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There is alot of mystery and bad faith contrary to what the internet community expected from address management for best interest of everyone.<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><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There is no mystery and there is no bad faith, but this distribution mechanism was not anticipated by those who designed the free-pool distribution method. Yes, it is not what was expected by earlier policymakers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But they didn’t live in an era with no meaningful free pools. Just about nobody returns addresses they don’t need for future distribution to those in need. Those days are gone, and really these lucky incumbents with un-needed addresses are an indictment of the policies of those days, which turned out to be inefficient and without incentive for return of addresses. We tried it, it didn’t work. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We are in a new time, a fraught time, with some free pools still out there but most addresses are distributed through financial transfers and leases. We can take the ostrich approach, put our heads in the sand and ignore things. But I think it would be better to have clarity. I can’t foresee exactly what problems may arise by having this novel distribution system grow without policy, but I think there will be problems, and at lease this proposal provides a financial incentive for lessors to accurately register assignments which is currently lacking.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Whether this policy passes or not isn’t terribly important to those engaged in leasing, because there are few barriers to engaging in leasing. If you can’t justify address purchases in ARIN, just buy addresses in RIPE. If you already have ARIN addresses, just keep leasing them out. This means that the only lessors in the market are incumbent Ipv4 owners, and these lessors often lack the skills required, which are usually quite different from the core business of the Ipv4 owner. This helps miscreants in the lease market take advantage of the Ipv4 owners.<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><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>