Nobody is denying resources to organizations that can document need. I don’t
know what your persistent failure is in this regard or why you are finding it
difficult. However, I have yet to see a case where any reasonable need was
turned away by ARIN unless one or more of the following circumstances existed:
1. The requestor refused to submit sufficient documentation.
2. The requestor refused to sign the RSA
3. The requestor refused to comply with community developed policy.
4. The requestor’s need was so small that they could not qualify
under policy.
Note: This last one has been so completely reduced in recent
policy cycles that it is hard to imagine a scenario where it would apply to any
but the most deliberate and stubborn of corner cases.
As such, I’m sorry, but absent your willingness to disclose specific examples
in detail, I find your argument suspect at best.
Owen
On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Owen, I would turn your argument around where you said " The fact that IP
> number policy does not have the force of government regulation doesn’t change
> the fact that circumventing community adopted policy for your own greed is
> tantamount to stealing someone’s furniture."
>
> I wouldn't use the word greed but I would say that denying real resources to
> real organizations now is stealing their future too!
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:31 AM
> To: Brandon Ross
> Cc: [email protected] List ([email protected])
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Matthew Petach wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot absolutely prevent you from stealing my furniture if you so
>>> desire. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going to put a lock on my
>>> front door to at least make it harder for you, and make it patently
>>> clear that you're doing so against my express desires.
>>
>> As has been mentioned here before, stealing furnature is a criminal offence,
>> writing a contract giving exclusive rights to address space is not. That's
>> a pretty crucial difference. If breaking and entering and stealing
>> furnature were legal, the small help of a lock on my porch screen door would
>> make little difference to a "bad actor". Locks keep honest people honest,
>> but if an activity is not widely agreed to be immoral, locks won't help.
>
> This is a distinction without a difference. The fact that IP number policy
> does not have the force of government regulation doesn’t change the fact that
> circumventing community adopted policy for your own greed is tantamount to
> stealing someone’s furniture.
>
> Arguing that because policy doesn’t carry the force of law, we shouldn’t have
> policy is not, IMHO, what you want to do here. That basically serves as a
> request for real regulators to come in and develop number resource regulation
> in place of our lack of policy.
>
> At its core, the internet is built on cooperation among the various entities
> connecting to the network. That cooperation is governed by rules built
> through a community consensus process. While I agree the process isn’t
> perfect, I would argue that it has worked far better than any legislative
> processes I have observed and that we probably prefer to keep it.
>
>>> I'll ask plainly; for everyone voting for needs-free transfers; would
>>> you still vote that way, *if in doing so, you were guaranteed to not
>>> be able to obtain any number resources under the new policy*?
>>
>> I don't have any address resources now, and I don't ever plan on having any
>> in the future, so sure, why not?
>>
>>> If not, I would claim your votes are not guided by the good of the
>>> community; they're guided by self-interest, and a hope and desire
>>> that you can get something for less effort than you can by following
>>> the current guidelines.
>>
>> Oh really?
>
> I think he was more talking about Mike B. and Steven R., than you, Brandon.
>
>> Much like Owen, I have a nice little business of helping small organizations
>> navigate the ARIN process to get address space. It's not a majority of my
>> income, but it's pretty nice and easy work for me. If needs basis goes
>> away, guess what else goes away?
>>
>> Even though Owen and I are on opposite sides of this coversation, I can
>> guarantee you right now that both of us, without fail, are arguing solely
>> for what we think is best for the community.
>>
>> It's quite ironic that I would make more money by arguing on your side of
>> the issue, isn't it?
>>
>> Or maybe my conspiracy is to get v4 to run out faster so I can make more
>> money on v6 deployment?
>
> It could be. I’m OK with that. ;-)
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
