[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:38:56PM -0500, Brent Sweeny wrote:
> 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

Here's the problem I have had with that argument from the start,
it's not self-consistent.

The argument is that:

  1) The black market is large enough, and powerful enough that we can't
     control it in any meaningful way.

  2) The black market operates totally in the shadows, hidden from view,
     and can't be measured.

It just doesn't make sense.  If 50% of the IP space out there was
traded by the black market we'd have people coming out of the
woodwork talking about the deals they made.  Even if all of these
people managed to keep silent, we could measure by subtraction,
half the space ISP's were asked to route would look "fishy" with
wrong names, addresses, etc in whois.

I'm going to suggest that I would be very surprised if more than 1
in 1000 IP blocks were traded on the black market per year.  To put
that in perspective the DoJ reports
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm) that about 20 people
per thousand are the victim of a violent crime in the United States.

Which is why I make the comparison.  At 20 per 1000 per year and a
current table size of 275,000 prefixes we'd have to have about 5,500
prefixes changing hands every year on the black market.  I would
think if there were 5,500 prefixes changing hands illegally we would
notice.

Now, there's a totally different argument to be made, and that is
if we continue current policy (that is, pass no transfer enabling
policies of any kind) that we will create a situation where the
black market will mushroom to many times its current size in a very
short period of time.  I've seen some people make that argument,
but very few.

I will put one stick in the ground now.  With what I believe to be
the extremely low rate of "black market" activity we have today I
see no reason for a policy which enables transfers to also effectively
offer amnesty to past traders.  I think to send a signal where we
absolve those who previously did not follow the rules is only asking
for more people to not follow the rules in the future.

With all of the "title registrar" type proposals there is a high
potential for absolution of past bad-acts.  The buyer and seller
of a block today, in violation of the rules, can simply submit a
change of owner later after the policy is passed.  Indeed, as a
policy like this becomes more likely to pass we're actually encouraging
the black market to act sooner as people begin to realize they can
perform these sorts of transactions.  Of course it may also create
a situation where unscrupulous sellers hold the change ransom over
their previous buyers, using the paperwork as an opportunity to
extract more money.  Wouldn't that be a real kick in the teeth, the
policy that enables free transfers provides a renewed opportunity
for bad-actors to victimize buyers.

All of this is why I've offered up my alternative proposal.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20081231/e314ae7a/attachment.sig>