Apologies… It was not intended as such. All of us have a natural tendency to color our opinions with our perspectives, our interests, and our experiences.
I have nothing against you or against brokers in general. I admit that I wish we didn’t need IP address monetization as I believe it creates multiple incentives in directions that aren’t necessarily good. Nonetheless, I do recognize the need and I have voted in favor of various policies related to that in my tenure on the AC. Hopefully we can move beyond IPv4 in for the most part in the coming years.. > On May 29, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > The plain inference that my opinion is based on my brokering is ad hominem. > However, I will allow it! ;-) > > Regards, > Mike > > > > ---- On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:52:13 -0400 Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote > ---- > > Mike, > > Yes and no. I believe that the lack of legacy holders for any blocks issued > under 4.1.8 reduces the need for the market. > > Defunct organizations can easily be reclaimed in this space because they stop > paying their ARIN bill. > > Eliminating the resale value of these addresses won’t really encourage > squatting on them and limiting the size of organization and size of block > that can benefit from 4.1.8 further helps to reduce the potential for > hoarding. > > I realize that as a broker, any address that can’t be monetized is a lost > opportunity for your organization, but I think there’s plenty of addresses > out there that haven’t been processed through 4.1.8, so I don’t think > limiting the resale potential of such blocks to reduce fraud is a bad idea. > > Owen > > > On May 28, 2019, at 12:46 , Mike Burns <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > The percentages of blocks transferred takes a significant leap at the /19 > size. > Below that, the percentages are all below 7%. > At /19 and above, the percentages are all above 21%. > Seems like a natural demarcation for maximum block size, but prices do > continue to rise. > While we want to fight fraud, we should still remember the underlying reasons > for the Ipv4 transfer market apply to these addresses as well. > That is, the market provides incentives for efficient use and accurate > registration. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of John Curran > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:53 PM > To: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance > Importance: High > > Folks - > > It occurred to me that it might be useful to have a quick summary of waiting > list blocks issued and subsequently transferred. > > Attached is the distribution (count per prefix size) of all blocks that have > been issued via ARIN's waiting list policy and subsequently transferred via > NRPM 8.2/8.3/8.4 policy. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > <image001.png> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues. > > >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
