[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-147 Set Transfer Need to 24 months and Clarify Exception

[Owen DeLong]

On May 2, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 5/2/2011 7:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 2, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> 
>>> On May 2, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> If they are to re-qualify, it doesn't make sense that they be forced to justify only a 3-month supply simply because the free pool is low or empty.
>>>>> 
>>>> I disagree.
>>> ...
>>>> Again, I don't think that we need to support that through policy. IPv4 is reaching its
>>>> end of life. There is a need to help some organizations limp along with it through
>>>> transfers while it is deprecated, but, seeking to create new businesses based on
>>>> IPv4 construction over the next 2 years is not something I favor encouraging or
>>>> facilitating through policy.
>>> 
>>> ANY new entity which is built through acquisition of something that exists today will need to serve customers on the IPv4 Internet for at least 2 years. Even if they are fortunate enough to grow.
>>> 
>>> You are arguing that because Facebook has enough IPv4 space to last for another year or two, a new upstart shouldn't be able to use VC money and the transfer market to obtain an existing entity with enough IPv4 space to compete against Facebook on the IPv4 Internet for a year... you'd rather force them into getting only enough for 3 months and then crossing their fingers in hope that another 3 month supply will be available... all because the ARIN free pool ran out?!?
>>> 
>> Not at all. If they obtain the entity through a section 8.2 transfer, more power to them.
> 
> But if the existing entity wasn't using the space efficiently, they'll lose it unless they re-qualify... which is also under the "3-month" rule at present.
> 
Which is as it should be.

>> If they are using 8.3 to obtain only the addresses, that is a different story.
>> 
> 
> Why should that be?
> 
Because the community intended to be slightly more liberal with M&A transfers than
with market-based transfers.

I will refer you to 2008-2 which was the last market-based transfer policy for which I
had any meaningful support.

> And doesn't this just mean that there wouldn't be 8.3 transfers, just 8.2 transfers using sham organizations that exist soley to hold the transferred space?
> 
Apparently not, as there have already been 10 8.3 transfers completed and we
all know about an 11th which is not yet complete.

Owen