Mike, You misunderstood (or at least mischaracterized) my statement.
I did not say that needs testing doesn’t protect the free pool. Indeed, it is one of the things that protects the free pool from being drained to the benefit of organizations without need. However, what I said was that protecting the free pool was not its only purpose. Owen On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Owen, > > "Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool. If > that were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies to > needs testing." > > Prior to the 12 month waiting period for transfers which was implemented in > 2012, needs testing was *indeed* required to save the remaining free pool. > Otherwise applicants would receive an allocation, sell it to re-establish > their need, and get another allocation. No bogus ORGs needed. Even before > addresses could be openly sold, needs testing of transfers was required to > avoid the draining of the free pool through needs-based allocations, then > transfers to a non-needing party, rinse and repeat. This is why I believe > needs testing was applied to transfers in RFC2050, not due to any principle > which required registry stewards to arbitrate transfers in the absence of a > free pool and the presence of a natural conserving factor- price. > > I am opposed to 2014-18. Now that the minimums have dropped to /24, one of > the barriers to very small applicants has been removed. Although I am against > need-testing of transfers, I am in favor of continued needs-testing free pool > allocations, even the lowly /24s. > > Regards, > Mike Burns > > > _______________________________________________ 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.
