+1
Owen
> On Jun 23, 2019, at 04:35 , Joe Provo wrote:
>
>
>
> Strongly oppose.
>
> We all see things through our own lenses, so I'm not
> suprised by the position of economists. I am troubled
> by some folks using the phrase "distort the market"
> to describe tge normal functioning of the
Hi Milton,
I answered your question by submitting a proposal to place returned addresses
in 4.10 to starve the waiting list to death.
That should be ready for debate next week, but we can begin.
Why is that silly?
It's likely to be an extremely marginal addition to the 4.10 /10 block.
Do
Strongly oppose.
We all see things through our own lenses, so I'm not
suprised by the position of economists. I am troubled
by some folks using the phrase "distort the market"
to describe tge normal functioning of the RIR, as if
there is some form of *primacy* to be placed on the
transfer
I do not see "dumping" them into 4.10 as wasting the addresses.
If the wait list was not around, I strongly suspect that 4.10 will become
more popular, as the only other "Free" option for most.
I see 4.10 as a mini version of the wait list, that has MORE limits on it
than the current wait
I see that no one has answered the question I posed - if v4 resources are
reclaimed by ARIN how does it dispose of them efficiently if it does not
auction them off?
Marty is correct that ARIN could refuse to accept returns. That that would
require the would-be returning party to auction them
John, this is a pretty lame response, I think you have substituted length for
accuracy here in order to make it appear as if you have more of an argument
than you do. But in reality you are just repeating, over and over again, the
speculation that monetary gain would become a decisive factor
Support
From: Alyssa Moore
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: David Farmer
Cc: Mueller, Milton L ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List (was:Re:
Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation
Regarding NRPM
