[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Scott Leibrand]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>   
>> 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.

I'm not sure I understand which "special transfer system" you're talking 
about.  Under the IPv4 transfer policy proposal, any organization 
wishing to acquire address space through a simple IPv4 transfer has to 
justify that they need the addresses, just as they have to do today.  
They must demonstrate efficient use of current space, and demonstrate 
near-term need for the IPv4 addresses being requested.  They will 
essentially follow the same process to get space as they do today, up to 
the point where ARIN tells them, "we don't have the addresses you need 
right now, so here's a qualification that allows you to go get those 
addresses via the transfer market".

In addition, this policy proposal preserves the existing M&A transfer 
policy, whereby an organization making an acquisition can also acquire 
the IP addresses currently in use by the acquired organization.  Under 
this policy, the organizations must still demonstrate that the addresses 
to be transferred are being efficiently utilized.

Does that address your concern that the transfer system will be 
perceived as unfair?  Or do you still see some actual unfairness in the 
policy that we should address?

Thanks,
Scott