[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:57 PM
>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Cc: David Conrad; Public Policy Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This is an ARIN not an IANA policy.
>
> You mean "when ARIN is no longer able to respond..."
>
Yes, this is an ARIN policy.  However, if you read the ARIN policy
text, the policy is implemented upon IANA free pool exhaustion,
so, the policy takes effect when IANA s not able to respond to
requests from RIRs.

> ARIN will always be able to respond, because there will be IPv4
> that will always be vacated.  There will always be ISP's and
> networks that go out of business and stop paying their registration
> fees, thus that space will become available.
>
> The problem isn't that ARIN cannot respond with IPv4 allocation
> requests.  The problem is that they cannot repond as fast as you
> want 'em.
>
This entire line of reasoning only makes sense if you follow the
above incorrect restatement of my meaning to it's absurd conclusion.

> Unless, of course, this policy goes into effect.  Because then,
> nobody will return IPv4 to ARIN.  They will just sell it to someone
> else.  Over time the deep-pockets own everything.
>
Current return statistics don't seem to support your position here.
I'm not convinced this policy is the right thing to do for a number
of reasons. However, this reasoning doesn't really have much
to do with my reasons for questioning the policy.

> You know, we already have that kind of stuff going on in other
> industries.  I for one am just a bit sick of the "he who has the
> gold makes the rules" garbage.  Can we just please NOT have to
> drag the Internet down this path?
>
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.

>> 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.
>>
>
> If that is all you really want, then a "reservation" system can
> be created that would require the IP block owner to return the blocks
> to ARIN then ARIN reallocate them.  No money need change hands
> between the donor and recipient.  The donor pays less fees so they
> financially benefit.
>
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.

> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I just did.
>
Uh, you presented a summary of what could become an alternative
proposal, but, as I stated above, you have a ways to go before you
reach alternative policy language.

Owen