[arin-ppml] "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )

[Benson Schliesser]

Hi, John.

On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:00 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> But the situation has changed.  Soon, we will no longer be rationing supply, because the supply is gone.  As a result of IPv4 maturity, and the impending scarcity that entails, I'd suggest RIR policy should be to relax control of the resource.  Allow a market to do what markets do best: efficiently distribute a scarce resource.
> 
> There is presently the specified transfer that provides some support for 
> a limited market of sorts, without departing from the conservation and 
> aggregation goals in the policy framework.
> 
> Is this insufficient to provide the incentive for efficient distribution?
> If a less restricted, more dynamic market is desirable, then would it 
> be one that operated without consideration of the need or aggregation 
> requirements (i.e. any size block transfer allowed, and to any party?)
> Some of these topics were discussed at length in the formation of the
> current specified transfer policy, so it would be good to discuss how
> the policy requirements have since changed.

The specified transfer service, in its current form, is not sufficient to facilitate efficient distribution.  A less-regulated market would be much more dynamic and appealing to buyers and sellers, especially at this stage.

But, of course, neither of us wish to recommend a market system that damages the stability of the Internet.  Given this fact, and per your suggestion, I'm working on some policy text that I hope to submit this coming week.  I look forward to discussing the ideas and improving them based on the constructive feedback of the community.

Cheers,
-Benson