I’m not going to support anything that provides a blanket exemption from needs basis.
I will support a change which allows an initial allocation/assignment/transfer of a minimal block of addresses (up to a /22 for an end-user or up to a /20 for an ISP seems reasonable to me) so long as it also includes anti-flip protections and some language preventing spinning up related party entities strictly for address acquisition. I believe this would address most of the concerns expressed (other than those seeking to eliminate needs basis altogether). Owen > On Sep 26, 2015, at 19:48 , Adam Thompson <athom...@athompso.net> wrote: > > At this point, I support anything that looks like a compromise so we can get > *any* change in policy at all... So this looks like a decent compromise to > me. Yes, it'll have to be revisited in a couple of years' time; yes, the > specifics probably aren't perfect. The community can change those. The policy > can even be written such that ARIN staff can change them independently > (although this doesn't seem to be a popular model). > Insisting on perfection is just hamstringing the entire service region... > both the speculators *and* legitimate users. > -Adam > > > On September 26, 2015 8:47:46 PM CDT, Brian Jones <bjo...@vt.edu> wrote: > I find Bill's proposal an interesting middle ground approach. I do not > believe completely eliminating needs-based justification for addresses is the > correct thing to do. > > -- > Brian > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Bill Buhler <b...@tknow.com > <mailto:b...@tknow.com>> wrote: > Having watched this for the last couple of years let me make a couple of > observations / one proposal: > > > > There seems to be a lot of fear on both sides of this debate, on the needs > test side there seems to be a complete fear of monopolization of the IP > address space by those with deep pockets. > > > > On the other side there seem to be a couple of thoughts: > > > > 1. It’s a market, markets work best when freed from constraints that > increase the complexity of non-harmful transactions, and that allowing > companies to more freely exchange IP resources is not harmful. > > 2. Not liking to justify future and current operations to a third > party / fear of rejection by this process. > > > > I may not have encapsulated both arguments well, and these have been hashed > over again and again for the last few years. So what is different today? ARIN > has allocated every last resource from the free pool, and has a long waiting > list. > > > > So what if we strike a compromise? What if some restrictions were put on > allocation size and frequency without a needs test and left only the truly > large or frequent transactions to do it. Something like this: > > > > Every legal entity can obtain up to a /22 from the transfer market every > year, in up to two transactions. They may not transfer these resources out of > their network within twelve months. Each legal entity has to occupy a unique > address (suite level) from any other entity in the ARIN database. > > > > All transfers larger than a /22 need to have needs based justification done > based on the current model. > > > > > > If you wanted to speculate, you would need to spin-up dozens of entities all > with unique mailstops, and you would have to camp on the addresses for a > year. Meanwhile the small end users and ISPs could obtain up to a /22 of a > resource that with a lot of careful use of NAT would support a fairly large > public network. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Bill Buhler > > > > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> > [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On > Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 11:48 AM > To: Owen DeLong > > > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > > > Owens comment from below: > > “2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can get > them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need from > getting addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them.” > > > > Owen’s comment is absolutely false!!!!! It allows large organizing who > request resources to get what they need or something smaller. It allows > medium size organizations who request resources to get what they need or > something smaller. It allows small organizations who request resources to > get what they need or nothing, and there is no other source to get resources > if ARIN rejects a request, but the open market which Owen and others seem to > wish did not exist! > > > > It is time to fix this inequity and removing needs tests would be a big help > to small organizations who really need resources! > > > > Steven Ryerse > > President > > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > 770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell > > 770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office > > > > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > > > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> > [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:24 PM > To: el...@velea.eu <mailto:el...@velea.eu> > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > > > > > On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:42 , Elvis Daniel Velea <el...@velea.eu > <mailto:el...@velea.eu>> wrote: > > > > Hi Richard, > > On 25/09/15 06:46, Richard J. Letts wrote: > > b) > There is no definitive outcome from the policy change, which makes me feel > that it's not worth changing -- the problem statement argument is weak at > best. > > the outcome is that everyone that will need IP addresses will be able to get > them. Isn't that quite definitive and clear? > > > > Sure, except it isn’t actually an outcome of the proposal on many levels: > > > > 1. The proposal does nothing to guarantee a supply of addresses or even > increase the supply. > > 2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can get > them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need from > getting addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them. > > 3. The definitive outcome from the policy change, if there is such, is that > those without need will now be more easily able to acquire addresses, > potentially preventing those with need from acquiring them. > > > > > It is potentially enabling organizations with more money than need gain more > resources, potentially at the expense of non-profit and educational > organizations who might not be able to raise cash for additional IPv4 space > [or equipment to support a transition to IPv6]. > > So, you think that in today's market the non-profit/educational organizations > will have the chance at getting some of the IP space from the market? And if > the needs-based barrier is removed, they will no longer have that chance? > Everyone knows that the IP address is now an asset and is worth a buck. Who > do you think will say: I'll give it for free to this educational organization > (because they have proven the need to ARIN) instead of giving it for money to > this commercial entity (that may or may not have a demonstrated need need for > it). > > > > Contrary to your statement, there have been addresses returned to ARIN and > there have been organizations who chose to transfer addresses to those they > found worthy rather than maximize the monetization of those addresses. > > > > OTOH, having a policy like this in place certainly makes it easier to > manipulate the market to maximize the price. > > > > I think we need to wake up. Keeping needs-based criteria in the policy will > only cause SOME transfers to be driven underground and block some others. > > > > I think claiming that those of us who believe needs-based criteria is still > useful are asleep is unwarranted. > > > > Changing policy just to (potentially) improve the accuracy of a database > seems not worth the (potential) risk. > > The change of the accuracy of the registry is already proven in the RIPE > region. I would say it's not just potential, it is real and visible. > > > > Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How was RIPE-NCC > accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to what extent was it > improved as a result of this policy change. What mechanism was used to > determine that the measured increase in accuracy was the result of the > particular policy abandoning needs-based evaluation? > > > > Owen > > > > > Richard > > regards, > Elvis > > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> > <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>> on behalf of > Dani Roisman <drois...@softlayer.com <mailto:drois...@softlayer.com>> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:20 PM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > | Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:53:59 -0400 > | From: ARIN <i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net>> > | To: arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> > | Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > | evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > | Message-ID: <56031167.1010...@arin.net <mailto:56031167.1010...@arin.net>> > | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > | > | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 > | Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 > | transfers of IPv4 netblocks > | > | On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > | "ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, > | and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy. > | > | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at: > | https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html > <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html> > > Greetings, > > There has been some stimulating dialog about the merits of 2015-9. I'd like > to ask that in addition to any overall support or lack thereof, you also > review the policy language and comment specifically on the changes proposed: > a) For those of you generally in support of this effort, are there any > refinements to the changes made which you think will improve this should > these policy changes be implemented? > b) For those of you generally opposed to this effort, are there any > adjustments to the policy changes which, if implemented, would gain your > support? > > -- > Dani Roisman > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net > <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any > issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net > <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any > issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net > <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any > issues. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net > <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any > issues. > > > > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
