> On May 15, 2016, at 14:32 , Mueller, Milton L <[email protected]> wrote: > > > <> > If the IPs are in the free pool, or available on the transfer > market doesn't change the fact that the numbers are a > limited and shared resource whose value comes from > the insurance that the resource holder has exclusive > claim to a unique set of numbers. In fact I would argue > that the supply of IPs are more limited now then they > ever were, especially for large blocks, and especially > for organizations that have been priced out of the > market and as such stewardship is even more > important. > > MM: whether we are dealing with a free pool or a transfer market makes a > world of difference. > Would you please address the two straightforward arguments that have already > been made about that, instead of ignoring them and hoping they will go away?
I won’t presume to speak for Jason, however, both of the issues below have been repeatedly asked and answered. Since you have apparently missed some previous answers, I will reiterate mine here for you… > 1. Transfers are rationed by price. Free pool assignments are not. > Stringent needs assessment can be justified when there is no price, because > there is no other way of conserving. As for your comment about those “priced > out of the market,” superimposing stringent needs assessment does NOT lower > the price for anyone. It probably raises it. Transfers are not rationed by price… Repeating this fallacy doesn’t make it inherently true. Price does not ensure that the purchaser has actual need for the resources, it merely insures that they have monetary resources that they are willing to trade for number resources. I realize that in the religion of Ayn Rand and the Kato Institute, this is indistinguishable from optimal resource management. You’ve presented no evidence whatsoever to support your conclusion that stringent needs assessment raises the price or even that it doesn’t prevent prices from being artificially raised. In fact, in the RIPE region where there are virtually no needs-based controls, according to the brokers I have discussed things with, prices are rising more rapidly than in the ARIN region, which would in fact appear to suggest that our needs-assessment regime is, in fact, holding prices down. > > 2. Numbers that are put into the transfer market are not, by > definition, truly needed by the holder. Therefore, (as long as a network > operator is involved) a transfer implies a movement from a less-needed to a > more-needed use – regardless of whether some kind of administrative needs > assessment was performed by ARIN. If we eliminate needs assessment, what mechanism assures that the transferee is actually a network operator? Further, how does it in any way assure that the transfer is from a place of less need to a place of greater need rather than a place of limited need to a place of greater monetary resources? You start with an assumption that you are correct in your conjecture and then act as if it is everyone else’s duty to provide evidence that your speculation is not correct. The reality is that these are judgment calls based on limited experience and while we do know that needs assessment does, in fact, work to some extent, there is very limited experience without it. Unfortunately, once it is eliminated, it will be virtually impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, so people are understandably cautious about opening the bottle all at once. Owen
_______________________________________________ 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.
