[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

> The assertion that there's "currently no incentive" to return or not
> return unused blocks is only true for legacy IPv4.  For IPv4 under  
> RSA,
> the incentive to return is to not have to pay fees for it.  And while
> I (and some others) have advocated ARIN take a more agressive role  
> over
> flushing out legacy IPv4 that isn't being used, the community has not
> appeared to support this.
>
Given that end users pay $100 per year, regardless of the number of
addresses held, I'm not sure how paying for it becomes an incentive
to return unused space.

The lack of an incentive is not, in itself a disincentive.  Between  
forward
and reverse there is a point known as stopped.


>>> Transfers can also make it easier for problems with badly-utilized
>>> space to be perpetuated, rather than addressed.
>>
>> How is that worse than the situation as it exists now?
>>
>
> Putting in a "special" transfer system is in effect implying to the
> requestor that if they do buy this other network, they will get a free
> ride on meeting their current utilization on their current block.  The
> existence of a "special" transfer system separate from the standard
> request-reallocate system that everyone follows, creates a "special"
> class that is just begging for a lawsuit.  How can ARIN effectively

Given that the policy under discussion specifically precludes such
transfers until IANA is no longer able to respond to requests, thus
eliminating the standard request-reallocate in short order, I am not
sure I agree with your reasoning.

Additionally, the policy specifically requires that a transferee meet
all of the same requirements that are necessary in order to qualify
under the request-reallocate system prior to receiving a transfered
block, so, this policy doesn't really create a "special" class in that
regard.

>
> argue in a court that they are denying a transfer for Sally Sue since
> she is under utilized, when they have a transfer system setup that
> is separate from the main system?  Sally would argue that the entire
> reason a separate transfer system was created was to be able to
> allow transferees to sidestep the utilization requirements everyone
> else has to follow - otherwise, there would be no need for a special
> transfer system in the first place.
>
You really should read the policy.  It was carefully crafted with the
desire to avoid such side-stepping and only really be effective when
the traditional process is no longer possible, but, still preserve the
same requirements.

If you feel that the policy does not accomplish this, it would be useful
for you to propose alternative language that you believe would do so.

Owen