On Jun 3, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Retaining the needs policy will result in a Whois filled with zombie corporations, resuscitated from the dead, alive only in the sense of their Whois listing and (sometimes) up-to-date corporate filing. These zombie corporations will be owned by companies like David’s, whose business decisions drive them towards non-policy-compliant address transfers. Whois will not be updated. Mike - Indeed, there quite likely will be some organizations that end up taking that approach; it is not possible to know whether the "non-compliant" aspect will deter them such that they transfer within policy constraints (i.e. limited to 2 years of expected growth) Note also that some organizations may transfer in compliance with policy and existing need, but then lock in the option with the current holder for future transfer of any remainder of the address block (which is neither detectable nor within ARIN's remit.) Whether that kind of outcome meets the desired policy goals is not clear, but it should be recognized as a rather likely in light of present policy and desire by networks for more certainty in their available supply of IPv4 number resources. In the end, the community needs to consider the ongoing expected benefits of the needs-based transfer constraints in light of these evolving conditions. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
