[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org]
>Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 6:33 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
>
>
>> Nothing in the CURRENT method of return-issue blocks improvements
>> of the overall utilization of IPv4.
>
>Except there is currently no incentive to return blocks and there will  
>be less over time.
>

I don't understand this reasoning.  If there's less than "no" incentive
that means there's a disincentive - AKA an incentive to keeping unused
blocks.  What incentive to keeping an unused block that you will never
use in the future exists other than selling it?  And unless a buying-and
selling market is developed through policies like these, how will an
unused block your never going to use, ever have value?

For unused blocks belonging to orgs that wil eventually use them, that
is perfectly fine if they hang on to them.

The assertion that there's "currently no incentive" to return or not
return unused blocks is only true for legacy IPv4.  For IPv4 under RSA,
the incentive to return is to not have to pay fees for it.  And while
I (and some others) have advocated ARIN take a more agressive role over
flushing out legacy IPv4 that isn't being used, the community has not
appeared to support this.

>> Transfers can also make it easier for problems with badly-utilized
>> space to be perpetuated, rather than addressed.
>
>How is that worse than the situation as it exists now?
>

Putting in a "special" transfer system is in effect implying to the
requestor that if they do buy this other network, they will get a free
ride on meeting their current utilization on their current block.  The
existence of a "special" transfer system separate from the standard
request-reallocate system that everyone follows, creates a "special"
class that is just begging for a lawsuit.  How can ARIN effectively
argue in a court that they are denying a transfer for Sally Sue since
she is under utilized, when they have a transfer system setup that
is separate from the main system?  Sally would argue that the entire
reason a separate transfer system was created was to be able to
allow transferees to sidestep the utilization requirements everyone
else has to follow - otherwise, there would be no need for a special
transfer system in the first place.

Ted