[ppml] hoarding (was Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe ofAdditional Requests)

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> > That is the crux of the issue. The hoarders are already there. They 
> > have a stock of legacy IP addresses that they are sitting on in the 
> > hopes that a market can develop.
> 
> ?
> 
> The fact that you received a legacy assignment makes you a hoarder?

Of course not. Why does everyone interpret people's statements in such
an extreme way? I did not use the word "all" or "every" in my statement.


The fact is that it is not easy for ARIN registered address holders to
be hoarders, but legacy holders have no such constraints on their
activity. The idea of selling IP addresses is nothing new, it has been
around for at over 10 years. Chances are that some hoarders are already
quietly sitting on a supply of legacy address space.

> % whois -h whois.arin.net 18.0.0.0
> % whois -h whois.arin.net 45.0.0.0

The holders of class A blocks are relatively well-known. But there is
also a large number of class B and class C allocations out there which
are less easy to figure out.

> > The legacy holders are hiding in the shadows relying on vague  
> > threats of legal action.
> 
> I'm not sure what benefit you derive by demonizing legacy address  
> space holders.

Pointing out that legacy holders risk losing their address blocks during
the IPv4 endgame is hardly demonizing them. If a legacy holder has a
legitimate technical need for address space, then I can't see why they
would not sign the ARIN RSA and participate with the rest of the
industry.

> > I believe that when push comes to shove, the U.S. government will  
> > come out on the side of an orderly regime (not market) 
> because that  
> > is generally what the USG supports.
> 
> Historically, the US government has tended to favor markets over  
> centralized planning and "from each according to ability, to each  
> according to need".  

NANPA contradicts this assertion. Even when the USG supports
market-based solutions they prefer rules-based markets with regulators
(or at least formal 3rd-party oversight). The USG does not generally
support free-for-alls, particularly in areas that are sensitive such as
communications infrastructure.

> However, I have some skepticism that the US  
> government would consider stepping into this mess, at least overtly.

When and if there are court cases over the rights to IPv4 address
blocks, I do expect the USG to step in because I expect that the court
cases will initially be all over the map leading to a great deal of
confusion. Until that happens, I don't expect the USG to say anything
unless ICANN or NRO request it.

--Michael Dillon