[ppml] APNIC policy proposal to create a regulated market in IPv4 addresses

[Owen DeLong]

Thus spake dlw at tellme.com:

> A great idea, but won't they put more value on swamp class C networks?
> I can't think of a better way to drive value for a black/white market
> in ip space than to differentiate some of it.

I fear that if we do not get a good portion of the legacy holders  
into some form
of RSA with ARIN, such a black market in swamp space is an inevitable  
result.
Further, I think you will see varying policies by ISPs towards  
blocking large
portions of swamp space just because they can't reliably predict what  
is or
isn't a valid address there.

Despite comments from the detractors who think that I am (pick one):

	1.	A legacy apologist (whatever that means)
	2.	Out to inflict ARIN evil on legacy address holders (goes well
			with the first one, doesn't it?)
	3.	Trying to back-door permanent status for address squatters
	4.	Trying to undermine ARINs ability to deal with the legacy issue

My real motivation, actually, is to try and create good policy which is
fair and balanced, but, allows legacy address holders and ARIN to
come to a mutual understanding which allows ARIN to provide good
solid registration services to legacy holders in a manner that is
not punitive to ARIN, legacy holders, or the ARIN membership.

I firmly support efforts towards outreach to legacy holders.

I am willing to accept that legacy holders are less likely to agree to
annual fees, but, I think that agreeing to an annual contact
refresh might be acceptable to most.  As such, I support and will
continue to support policy that enables that.

I believe that legacy holders view some of the revocation and
open-ended modification at any time without notice provisions
of the RSA as a threat and a detriment compared to their existing
status.  As such, I believe it is to the benefit of the ARIN
community to be able to identify legacy holders reliably and
maintain contact with them on a regular basis such that
defunct address registrations can be reclaimed and removed
from whois to prevent hijacking and abuse.  Therefore, I support
the idea of an ARIN RSA for legacy holders which preserves their
current status to whatever extent is feasible, but, at least requires
annual contact refresh with ARIN and provides mecahnisms for
ARIN to reliably determine if the addresses are no longer needed.

I have written and submitted policy language to this effect.  While
I received notification from the AC that the submitted policy was
not accepted as a formal proposal, neither the shepherds, nor
any other members of the AC have yet contacted me with any
of the reasons for this decision.

I am open to suggestions from others, and, willing to support
policies proposed by others that I believe work towards the
above defined goals.

Owen