> On May 16, 2016, at 10:36 AM, McTim <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > <SNIP> > > >> >> If we eliminate needs assessment, what mechanism assures that the transferee >> is actually a network operator? > > This, to my mind is the central question. Do we, as a community want > to allocate/assign resources to folks who will speculate in address > resources for fun and profit or not?
I don't think the implications of full elimination of needs assessment are on topic for this thread. If anyone believes that ARIN-2015-3 would allow organizations who do not operate a network and do not have any need for addresses to acquire them for speculative purposes, I think they are mistaken, so I would need to see a lot more justification to consider that as a valid last call objection to 2015-3. As Jason mentioned, this proposal relaxes needs requirements somewhat, but does not eliminate them. -Scott > > > Further, how does it in any way assure that >> the transfer is from a place of less need to a place of greater need rather >> than a place of limited need to a place of greater monetary resources? > > > it does not. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > _______________________________________________ > 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.
