Owens comment from below:
“2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can get them
already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need from getting
addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them.”
Owen’s comment is absolutely false!!!!! It allows large organizing who request
resources to get what they need or something smaller. It allows medium size
organizations who request resources to get what they need or something smaller.
It allows small organizations who request resources to get what they need or
nothing, and there is no other source to get resources if ARIN rejects a
request, but the open market which Owen and others seem to wish did not exist!
It is time to fix this inequity and removing needs tests would be a big help to
small organizations who really need resources!
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
[Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks,
Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:42 , Elvis Daniel Velea
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 25/09/15 06:46, Richard J. Letts wrote:
b)
There is no definitive outcome from the policy change, which makes me feel that
it's not worth changing -- the problem statement argument is weak at best.
the outcome is that everyone that will need IP addresses will be able to get
them. Isn't that quite definitive and clear?
Sure, except it isn’t actually an outcome of the proposal on many levels:
1. The proposal does nothing to guarantee a supply of addresses or even
increase the supply.
2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can get them
already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need from getting
addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them.
3. The definitive outcome from the policy change, if there is such, is that
those without need will now be more easily able to acquire addresses,
potentially preventing those with need from acquiring them.
It is potentially enabling organizations with more money than need gain more
resources, potentially at the expense of non-profit and educational
organizations who might not be able to raise cash for additional IPv4 space [or
equipment to support a transition to IPv6].
So, you think that in today's market the non-profit/educational organizations
will have the chance at getting some of the IP space from the market? And if
the needs-based barrier is removed, they will no longer have that chance?
Everyone knows that the IP address is now an asset and is worth a buck. Who do
you think will say: I'll give it for free to this educational organization
(because they have proven the need to ARIN) instead of giving it for money to
this commercial entity (that may or may not have a demonstrated need need for
it).
Contrary to your statement, there have been addresses returned to ARIN and
there have been organizations who chose to transfer addresses to those they
found worthy rather than maximize the monetization of those addresses.
OTOH, having a policy like this in place certainly makes it easier to
manipulate the market to maximize the price.
I think we need to wake up. Keeping needs-based criteria in the policy will
only cause SOME transfers to be driven underground and block some others.
I think claiming that those of us who believe needs-based criteria is still
useful are asleep is unwarranted.
Changing policy just to (potentially) improve the accuracy of a database seems
not worth the (potential) risk.
The change of the accuracy of the registry is already proven in the RIPE
region. I would say it's not just potential, it is real and visible.
Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How was RIPE-NCC
accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to what extent was it improved
as a result of this policy change. What mechanism was used to determine that
the measured increase in accuracy was the result of the particular policy
abandoning needs-based evaluation?
Owen
Richard
regards,
Elvis
________________________________________
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of
Dani Roisman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:20 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
| Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:53:59 -0400
| From: ARIN <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
| To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
| Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
| evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
| Message-ID: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
|
| Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
| Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4
| transfers of IPv4 netblocks
|
| On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
| "ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3,
| and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy.
|
| Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at:
| https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html
Greetings,
There has been some stimulating dialog about the merits of 2015-9. I'd like to
ask that in addition to any overall support or lack thereof, you also review
the policy language and comment specifically on the changes proposed:
a) For those of you generally in support of this effort, are there any
refinements to the changes made which you think will improve this should these
policy changes be implemented?
b) For those of you generally opposed to this effort, are there any adjustments
to the policy changes which, if implemented, would gain your support?
--
Dani Roisman
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[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.
