I disagree. It's not as clear cut as you'd like to fantasize it is. Best,
-M< On Saturday, June 14, 2014, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
