> On Feb 3, 2017, at 14:45 , Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > As far as I know, Ripe does not require that, only addresses sourced in ARIN > or APNIC require a needs test at RIPE.
My understanding is that 50% within 5 years is required on all RIPE NCC allocations. RIPE NCC does not do assignments, they farm those out through “sponsoring LIRs”. > And thank you for demonstrating yet again that you are basing these policy > decisions on a fear of market manipulation. No, I am stating that market manipulation is one valid consideration in these policy decisions. > You ignored the various reasons why we do not have to fear this, and the > absence of evidence of such attempts. No, I didn’t ignore it, I rebutted your claim that it was nonexistent. > Can you present any evidence of IPv4 transfer market manipulation or > speculation that does not involve free-pool plundering? No, but I can’t tell you what was on the missing seconds of tape from Watergate, either. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence or absence. > I think that if we are bound to clutter the NRPM over these fears, some > evidence should be forthcoming. I don’t feel that the NRPM is cluttered, nor do I feel that these concerns are the only reason these are reasonable protections to preserve. > After all, we are the stakeholders who have some control over the situation > and certainly would have time to erect one of these policy barriers in the > case that such evidence arose. That’s laughable… It generally takes at least a year for anything with any controversy at all to go from proposal to submission to the board for ratification. Then it’s usually a month or two for ratification and another 6 months or more for implementation. In addition to that, given the likely mechanisms at work in such a scheme, it would be unlikely that we would see evidence, per se, before it was too late to really do anything effective. Owen > > Regards, > Mike > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 5:26 PM > To: Mike Burns <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: David Huberman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited > > No, Mike, You are missing that “an organization’s business purpose” may be > something other than “running an operational network”. > > We are attempting to ensure that the addresses go to those who intend to use > them in an operational network, rather than treating them as a commodity > futures investment, speculative transaction, or other financial manipulation > at the expense of the internet. > > Even RIPE requires you to use at least half of the addresses on an > operational network. > > Owen > >> On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:53 , Mike Burns <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> >> I appreciate you trying to make me understand. >> So are you assuming in your example that you seek to purchase space that you >> do not need for your business purposes. >> My argument is that organizations do not purchase space for which they don’t >> feel there is a valid business purpose. Now it’s true that an >> organization’s perception of need will vary from the one which is being >> rigorously defined here, but there is an obvious brake on the purchase of >> items for which there is not a business purpose. >> >> And for those whom we are imagining who are determined to somehow go around >> policy to acquire un-necessary space, there are already plenty of >> workarounds, the simplest of which is to acquire RIPE space. >> >> Am I missing something obvious that requires this additional complexity to >> what was a nice smooth section of the NRPM? >> >> Regards, >> Mike >> >> >> From: David Huberman [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] >> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM >> To: Mike Burns <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: Jason Schiller <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited >> >> Mike, >> >> I buy a /13. I abuse the spirit of 2016-3, meant for smaller transfers as >> our first attempt at no needs testing, by reiterating /16 transfers one >> after the other. >> >> Market pricing doesn't stop this, and the ARIN community who participates in >> public policy matters has made it clear that an incremental approach towards >> needs testing is a good thing. >> >> David >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 3, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >>> If that approach still doesn't work can you suggest some other mechanism to >>> prevent abuse that does not prevent an organization who needs IP space from >>> using this policy? >>> >>> >>> Hi Jason, >>> >>> Why are we ignoring the mechanism that prevents organizations from buying >>> un-needed anything? To wit, they have to pay money for these addresses. You >>> guys are spinning up unlikely scenarios and ignoring the 800lb. elephant in >>> the room… the cost of these addresses is the mechanism you seek. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mike >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>). >> 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any >> issues.
_______________________________________________ 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.
