Thanks for that thoughtful response and recap, Jason. I really appreciate it.
I agree with Bruce that 2015-3 helps the little guy (coming from a 'little guy' myself) in that the 30 days is onerous, however at the other end of the spectrum this could end up hurting the little guy unable to pay for space at inflated prices, if the, uhh, speculation re: speculation proves true. While, as Scott mentioned, 2015-3 does not represent full elimination of needs assessment and arguments to that end fall prey to the slippery slope fallacy, it does relax needs assessment. Or at least* perceived *needs assessment under the current operational practices re: transfers at the 30 day mark. I agree with Jason that the current policy is not no-op, even without staff checking up at 30 days, so long as the possibility of one committing fraud by non-compliance is present. At this time, I support the removal of the 30 days provision, but would like to see another mechanism for limiting overly optimistic transfers. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
