On Jun 4, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And secondarily, what size of un-needs tested transfer would be an >> acceptable balance between the benefits of the needs test and the costs of >> the needs test? > > /24 seems like a perfectly reasonable balancing point to me. I’d be willing > to conduct an experiment on a temporary basis at /20 for a limited time (12 > months). > > Owen > > > Hi Owen, > > I understand your position and belief that the needs test serves to preserve > space for those with a legitimate and quasi-immediate need, but in my > experience there is plenty of supply in the transfer market currently, and in > any case we are talking about relatively small amounts which can be > sequestered without the demonstration of need. > > Thus I don't think the removal of a needs test for transfers smaller than a > /16 will have any measurable effect on the ability to find space on the > transfer market at current price levels.
So you have repeatedly said. We can agree to disagree. > Thanks for offering your input to my second question. A /20 is an interesting > choice because it appears in policy as the minimum size for some allocations > and requestors who fail to meet that threshold are some of the corner cases > which would be helped by the potential for a needs-free transfer. I thought it was a reasonable compromise between the status quo and the proposed /16. It’s literally meeting half-way. For some reason, those on the other side mostly want to call that “standing in the way of progress” and/or “refusing to compromise”. Personally, I wish we could take the emotion out of the discussion and argue the merits. Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
