Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Mike’s proposal expands trade and therefore can’t be construed as restraint of
trade… The real question is if banning leasing in all forms is restraint of
trade, why isn’t the current policy also restraint of trade?
Owen
Owen,
This proposal is a strawman ppml troll, it is clearly restraint on
trade, it specifically was written to be so.
My understanding of ARIN's current policy which does not permit
operationally divorced number assignment to be utilized for needs-based
justification for application to ARIN, is clearly not.
For reasons that are obvious upon the slightest reflection, such as that
it only concerns itself with interactions where ARIN is the direct party.
Even with all the various positions we have found ourselves in
opposition, I find myself confused as to how this made it out of the
outbox, the potential negative effects on the public discourse should
have been enough to discard. I would like to chalk it up as an aberration.
The only motivation that I can ascribe is the clearly expressed desire
to hasten IPv4 demise by intensifying its scarcity and decreasing its
usability.
As before, I dont consider that responsible or justifiable, no matter
the length of time that it would actually affect real people, and no
matter the effect it may have in accelerating IPv6 deployment, which
personally, I doubt very much would be anything other than negligible.
IPv4 policies should advance IPv4 number stewardship. IPv6 policies
should advance IPv6 number stewardship. Cross-motivations should be
automatically suspect and should require extensive and explicit
justification.
I dont mind if this blight of an email thread gets lost.
Joe
_______________________________________________
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.
