On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Brian Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mathew, > I think we are in agreement on some level. I don't want valuable resources > to sit idle either. At the same time arbitrarily handing out large blocks > of resources without any real show of need allows for possible misuse of > the resources by those who would hang on to them to get a better price or > for whatever reason they want. > > > The IPv4 free pool is now empty, and there are no more large blocks to > hand out. Is this still a concern when all blocks must be acquired via > transfer? If so, can you explain why that's more of a concern under the > proposed policy than under current policy? > The "large blocks" reference I used is probably not the appropriate wording, but routed blocks matter and should be documented appropriately in order to help keep the Internet routing tables as accurate as possible. I still believe some show of need should be present. Either way the resources sit idle. I am for a reasonable amount of > justification for the amount of resources that can be consumed in a > reasonable time period. Defining reasonable in the last two sentences and > coming to agreement may be the crux of the matter. > > If the organization was mistaken about how many or how fast they would use > the resources, then the process should be able to easily accommodate > transfer, selling, or returning them as long as they follow procedures to > ensure that documentation records of the resources can be appropriately > updated for the good of the Internet. > > In the end there is really not a good way to prevent unused addresses > sitting idle. It is up to the recipients of justified resources to be good > stewards and use them appropriately and hopefully transfer, sell, or return > them if they no longer need them. > > > Totally agreed. > > -Scott > > > On Aug 20, 2015 9:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/20/2015 1:04 PM, Brian Jones wrote: >> >> >> I agree with this simplified requirement but would even be willing to >> accept a 50% within 12 months and 75% in 24 months requirement. Two years >> is a long time to tie up valuable resources that are not being used. IMHO >> >> >> I do not understand this reasoning. There is no more free pool. If Org A >> is not using "valuable resources" and they are transferred to Org B who was >> mistaken about how fast they will use them, then Org B is also not using >> "valuable resources". But if instead Org A can't transfer them, then Org B >> doesn't get them and Org A still has "valuable resources" which are "tied >> up". They're "tied up" not being used either way... and ARIN can't do >> anything about it. >> >> If you really want to make sure that these resources don't sit unused, >> make it so that after Org A transfers to Org B then if Org B doesn't use >> all of them, Org B can sell what they're not using. >> >> Matthew Kaufman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
