[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:leo.vegoda at icann.org]
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 2:18 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: David Conrad; Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional
>Requests
>
>
>On 17 Aug 2007, at 03:03, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> But I just cannnot see how you could make such a thing happen for
>> IPv4 sales without running afoul of a lot of policy and assumptions
>> that people have made so far.  The utilization requirements for
>> one thing - how can a hoarder operate without having a large stockpile
>> of unused numbers, and how can they get this without lying - unless
>> they were a legacy holder - in which case the legacy holders sell
>> off their holdings and ARIN forces the "buyers" to sign an RSA and
>> meat utilization requirements, or
>> the legacy holders attempt to "rent" the IP's out while not changing
>> the whois data - which ruins whois, and thus provides incentives for
>> the community to just drop recording of legacy IPv4 blocks in the
>> public records.
>
>You're assuming that they wouldn't want to change the data in whois
>to show that their 'tenant' is responsible for the network in
>question.

No, not the issue.  The issue is even if the whois records are changed,
they can only be changed to show the "hoarder" as making an allocation
to the "purchaser"  The control over the IP block still stays with the
"hoarder"  So if for example the "hoarder" fails to pay their ARIN bill
and ARIN yanks the hoarder's IP addresses, the "purchaser" has absolutely
no recourse and will lose their IP addressing.

For that reason I would assume the "purchasers" would insist on going
through the appropriate ARIN RSA and have the block responsibility
moved to them.

>As long as the 'freeholder' can reclaim the space when the
>rent isn't paid there isn't a problem for them and they may well want
>to update ARIN's whois server or their own rwhois server.
>

If the "purchaser" is willing to have that sort of arraingement then
the entire transaction is nothing more than a standard, allowed, IP
sub allocation of IP addresses and wouldn't be objectionable.  In other
words you have eliminated the concept of hoarding and selling IP addresses
and replaced it with what is already legally going on - the process of
ISP's making allocations of IP addresses to their customers.

Since ISP's are in competition with each other, the concept of windfalls
of selling blocks of IPv4 addresses for millions goes right out the
window - because the "renter" could choose any number of ISPs out there
to obtain IP addresses from.  Of course, those IP numbers still show the
"hoarder" as having ownership.

Remember, ARIN fulfills IPv4 requests on a first-come, first served order.

Post-IPv4,  ARIN will still be accepting IPv4 requests.  They will just be
telling the requestors that they will have to wait until IPv4 is turned in.
As IPv4 is turned it, when ARIN can fill a backorder for IPv4 they will.
Thus, if a "purchaser" goes to ARIN and says "wonkulating gronkulators
agreed to sign a statement saying they don't need a /17 of IPv4 anymore
and I want you to give it to me" then ARIN will say "wait a minute - there's
other requests in line in front of you.  If Wonkulating Gronkulators
has freed up a /17 of IPv4 then great - but it's going to be given to the
guy that has been waiting ahead of you for IPv4"

Thus without ARIN approval I don't see how an "ebay market for IPv4" can
exist that would allow responsibility for blocks to be passed between
organizations, when there are people waiting in line for IPv4.

Ted