[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:18 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: David Conrad; Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
>
>
>
>I'll leave the discussions of the benefits/evils of capitalism/ 
>socialism/
>communism and comparative economics to others who have more
>expertise and interest.
>
>I believe most, if not all of the economies in the ARIN service region
>are based on capitalism, so, some amount of that is hard to avoid.
>

ARIN is a non-profit and it's charter is thus not to act in a
capitalistic manner.

>
>I just don't see where you're getting this idea.  Many (if not most)  
>of the
>likely "donors" are end-user assignments as far as ARIN fees go, if
>they are paying fees at all.  As such, they pay $100 per year now, and,
>they would pay $100 per ear afterwards.
>

Before we go putting a transfer policy in based on the idea that
many of these "extra" IPv4 blocks are end-user assignments, why
isn't anyone asking ARIN how many of these are actually end-user
assignments?

If only 2% of the IPv4 are end-user assignments, then why are
we doing this?  What is the point of putting in a transfer policy that
benefits so few?  Whatever IPv4 scavenged from them will be so
small as to be meaningless.

If your supporting the transfer proposal the onus is on you to
get these reports from ARIN and use them to convince the rest of
us the policy is needed, not throw around "likely" assumptions.

>> If your dead-set that the only way donors will give up IPv4 is by
>> paying them over and above the financial gain for not having to pay
>> fees on IPv4, then post-IPv4 runout, ARIN can start "bonusing" out
>> donors who return IPv4 - and raise allocation fees for IPv4 to pay
>> for the bonuses.  In that way it is fair for everyone, and the burden
>> is not on the requestor to find an org that has spare IPv4.
>>
>I would encourage you to draft alternative policy language that would
>support such a system.  I'm not necessarily opposed to that method,
>but, I'm not sure how to go about implementing such a thing in policy.

>Uh, you presented a summary of what could become an alternative
>proposal,

Yes, that was the intent.  Before going to the work of writing a
policy change, is it not a good idea to float the trial balloon
as a summary idea first?

Ted