[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 14, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:18 AM
>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Cc: David Conrad; Public Policy Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll leave the discussions of the benefits/evils of capitalism/
>> socialism/
>> communism and comparative economics to others who have more
>> expertise and interest.
>>
>> I believe most, if not all of the economies in the ARIN service  
>> region
>> are based on capitalism, so, some amount of that is hard to avoid.
>>
>
> ARIN is a non-profit and it's charter is thus not to act in a
> capitalistic manner.
>
And, under this policy, ARIN would not be acting in a capatilistic
manner. ARIN would merely be allowing others to trade IPv4
addresses on that basis.

>>
>> I just don't see where you're getting this idea.  Many (if not most)
>> of the
>> likely "donors" are end-user assignments as far as ARIN fees go, if
>> they are paying fees at all.  As such, they pay $100 per year now,  
>> and,
>> they would pay $100 per ear afterwards.
>>
>
> Before we go putting a transfer policy in based on the idea that
> many of these "extra" IPv4 blocks are end-user assignments, why
> isn't anyone asking ARIN how many of these are actually end-user
> assignments?
>
> If only 2% of the IPv4 are end-user assignments, then why are
> we doing this?  What is the point of putting in a transfer policy that
> benefits so few?  Whatever IPv4 scavenged from them will be so
> small as to be meaningless.
>
The percentage of total IPv4 is not nearly the issue so much as
the percentage of likely unused IPv4 addresses.  ARIN would be
able to provide statistics on total IPv4, but, does not have any
statistics on underutilized blocks after they have been delegated.

> If your supporting the transfer proposal the onus is on you to
> get these reports from ARIN and use them to convince the rest of
> us the policy is needed, not throw around "likely" assumptions.
>
I have not taken a position on this proposal yet.  I helped craft it
along with my fellow AC members based on what we believed to
be a good set of tradeoffs assuming the community felt such a
transfer process was needed.  I am not yet convinced either way
on the need or not for such a process.  Certainly, there are
possible scenarios under which I would definitely oppose such
a policy.  I'm not sure about supporting such a policy.

>>> If your dead-set that the only way donors will give up IPv4 is by
>>> paying them over and above the financial gain for not having to pay
>>> fees on IPv4, then post-IPv4 runout, ARIN can start "bonusing" out
>>> donors who return IPv4 - and raise allocation fees for IPv4 to pay
>>> for the bonuses.  In that way it is fair for everyone, and the  
>>> burden
>>> is not on the requestor to find an org that has spare IPv4.
>>>
>> I would encourage you to draft alternative policy language that would
>> support such a system.  I'm not necessarily opposed to that method,
>> but, I'm not sure how to go about implementing such a thing in  
>> policy.
>
>> Uh, you presented a summary of what could become an alternative
>> proposal,
>
> Yes, that was the intent.  Before going to the work of writing a
> policy change, is it not a good idea to float the trial balloon
> as a summary idea first?
>
Sure.  So, I encourage you to do the rest of the work of writing and
submitting the proposal.

Owen

> Ted