[arin-ppml] Stepping forward, opening my mouth and removing all doubt about

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 27, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> Then there is also those who say, me included, that a
>> liberalized transfer
>> policy will not solve the problem at all.
>
> No one in their right mind believes that a liberalized transfer policy
> will "solve the problem" if "the problem" is IPv4 address scarcity.  
> What
> it does is handle that scarcity in the most efficient manner over a
> temporary (hopefully) period. I hope we can lay that straw man to  
> rest.

The most efficient in this case being defined in terms of "Those  
addresses
being reassigned to the highest bidder".

It is not clear to me that the highest and best use of IP addresses
can be measured by the dollars people are willing to commit to their
possession.  I realize that this flies in the face of many pro- 
capitalism
pro-market, etc. types which abound here.  I am not anti-capitalism
or anti-market, but, I am not 100% convinced in either direction.

>
> People who believe in an IPv6 transition have to ask themselves what
> happens 3 - 5 years from now when the migration is not complete and  
> the
> free pool is exhausted. Apparently their "policy" is panic-based crash
> IPv6 adoption by people who may or may not be ready. To have no policy
> regarding the reclamation and transfer of available IPv4 resources
> during that period is irresponsible. The idea that transfer policies
> somehow delay the migration to IPv6 has been refuted in our paper.
>
There is an existing policy for the reclamation and transfer of IPv4  
resources.
Anyone who has IPv4 resources they do not need can turn them back in
to ARIN or their local RIR for recycling at no cost.

The RIRs will happily recycle any and all IP resources received.

The fact that this policy does not provide adequate incentives to those
holding the resources is, perhaps, a better description of the issue
at hand?

Owen