[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6

[Brent Sweeny]

the trick is not to wave our arms vainly against the wind, insisting on a
view of the internet in our region that's just not realistic--either too
wild-west *or* too regulated.  I *believe* that what Randy is saying is that
there's already a flourishing black market and that it's likely vain to think
we can stop it by fiat *or* by trying to jigger the financials--it's assumed
to be too well-entrenched and too adaptable.  How large that market is may be
both crucial and impossible to know, but it's foolish to pretend it isn't
there, or is insignificant enough that rules alone might make it go away. And
if it's large enough, our making rules that we claim would stop that market,
or lessen its attractiveness, may in fact backfire and instead make the
rule-making or -enforcing organization functionally irrelevant, even for
those of us who want to be law-abiding--not because we disagree with the
intent (and even expression) of the rules, but because even we have to
finally agree that they don't sufficiently enhance the Internet's value. I
think that's also the attraction to ARIN staying in the mix, trying to tame
the wildness while remaining reasonable.  So, to the extent possible it is
attractive to structure this inevitable transition in a way that enhances
transparent and reliable documentation of who has what--I *think* that's a
goal everyone agrees is desirable. How much more ARIN should (and can) do is
at the core of this debate, I think.  At least that's the way I read the
goals--apologies for how far off I am.

Possibly --as so often-- the realistic position is somewhere in the middle:
an acknowledgment that some 'free or unregulated exchange' (a euphemism for
what others would call black market) is here and likely to stay (at least as
long as it's financially or functionally [less onorous obstacles]
attractive); I don't think that claiming not to recognize/accept them is
going to have much effect as long as a critical mass of folks *do* route
them, and I think that if our eyes are open enough we should be able to see
the critical mass is there and I think is unlikely to change much.  So I
think I'm in favor of ARIN keeping a facilitating role, not trying to force a
regulating one.

I'd also suggest that the energy going into trying to reclaim a very small
amount of ipv4 space has a pretty low ROI. We'd all be much better served, I
believe, if we put the same amount of energy into trying to incent *everyone*
into wider and faster and more pervasive v6 adoption.  (Could ARIN refuse to
give anyone any more ipv4 space if they're not already using --not just
holding-- a significant amount of ipv6 space? Could any transit provider
receive no more ipv4 space until and unless they support native ipv6 peering
everywhere they peer? --and by extension, could the same be true of every
transit consumer applying for more v4 space, that they are v6-peering with
every upstream that offers it [and wishfully: were also carrying it
ubiquitously downstream, though that's much harder to verify.]  If that were
true, the arguments for "needing" more v4 space would quickly dwindle--not
into nothing, but into the really few edges where v6 cannot work. And it
seemed to me that was more along the lines of what I saw ARIN's mission
being.  See, there I go waving my arms in the wind too...)
	Brent Sweeny, Indiana University (no ivory towers, but gothic ones;)

> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:36:50 -0500
> From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
> Subject: Re: Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 04:06:53AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>> lol. you mean turn the existing natural black market into one where we 
>> can actually track and see the transfers, have the rirs data actually 
>> reflect reality, etc.  the market exists, whether we like it or not, get 
>> over it.
> 
> Is this true in general, or is there something that makes the RIR
> data unique?  After all, the same argument could be applied to many
> other things:
> 
>   There is a black market in ..... [lots of things]
>   ...therefor we should turn it into a white market where it can
>   be tracked and see the transfers.  The market exists, get over
>   it.
> 
> If your love for markets is absolute, I admire your conviction.  If
> its not, and you see a need for sensible rules at least for some
> markets then I suggest articulating why you think the RIR market
> should be a wide open free for all might be a more useful use of
> electrons than waving your hand as if it was an obvious absolute.
> 
> The existence of a black market does not mean there should be "free
> trade" or no rules, it mearly means the item at hand has value.
>