[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 04:36:31PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> This policy seems to undermine the idea that IP addressing is assigned on
> the
> basis of proving need.  It lends credibility to the idea that IP addressing
> is property, and could open the door to any number of lawsuits based
> on this.  For example if an organization "purchases" IPv4 they could
> then file a lawsuit against a large provider which decided to block
> access from that purchased block, claiming discriminatory behavior.

Two things to consider:

- The AC felt that need should still be a factor, hence the desire to
  pre-qualify based on existing policies.  I believe in general we wanted
  to retain as much need based addressing as seemed practical to do.

- The AC worked closely with legal council to try and find the right
  words and phrasing.  The transfer is not on IPv4 numbers; it is on a
  bundle of services that ARIN provides.  I don't want to dismiss your
  worry completely, as even with input from council many AC members
  still have a concern in this area.

> "...We (the AC) are proposing some changes to existing ARIN policy regarding
> the
> transfer of IP address block registrations between subscribers, which will
> allow for
> the emergence of trade in IPv4 address space, with ARIN to provide a
> listing service for address blocks available for transfer under the
> liberalized policy...."

In the same statement you will also find...

]                                                      "While the
] AC as a whole believes the policy proposal to be well written and
] carefully considered, we are not unanimous in all aspects of the
] policy proposal, nor even are we united in the view that the proposed
] policy should be adopted."

The AC has not endorsed this policy as something that should be
done.  Indeed, there are members of the AC who share your concern
and that no transfer policy should pass.

Our primary goal was to spark discussion on that very point.  Until
now it's been "there's a proposal in APNIC" or "transfers may work
like this..."  We wanted to put forth a straw man of what we
considered to be a well thought out transfer policy to spark real
community discussion, and we very much welcome your comments.

-- 
       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/20080211/d4bbcd9f/attachment.sig>