[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Scott Leibrand]

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 11/02/2008 17:35, "Member Services" <info at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> 8.4.1    Conditions on the transferor:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>      * The transferor has not received any IPv4 allocations or
>>        assignments from ARIN (through ordinary allocations or
>>        assignments, or through this Simple Transfer policy) within the
>>        preceding 24 months.
>>      * The transferor may not request any IPv4 allocations or assignments
>>        from ARIN (through ordinary allocations or assignments, or through
>>        this Simple Transfer policy) within the subsequent 24 months.
> 
> The current policy allows some subscriber members to receive IPv4 space to
> meet their needs for six months.
> 
>    4.2.4.4. Six months
> 
>    After a subscriber has been a member of ARIN for one year
>    they may choose to request a six-month supply of IP addresses.
> 
> Can the proposers explain why the proposal would not allow transfers away
> from subscribers until 24 months after receiving their last allocation? The
> difference between the two periods is considerable and I am not sure why the
> proposers chose 24 months rather than 12, 36 or some other number of months.

The restriction in 8.4.1 is on someone becoming a transferor (someone 
with surplus addresses willing to transfer them to another party) if 
they have acquired addresses recently.  It does not prevent someone from 
*getting* addresses through the transfer process who has recently 
received them under 4.2.4.4 or through any other policy.  (The policy 
section related to that is the "one transfer every 6 months" rule, but 
there is no restriction on how soon after your last normal allocation 
you can acquire space through your first transfer.)

The concern in 8.4.1 is with hoarding and speculation.  Without a 
waiting period between receiving addresses and becoming a transferor, 
there would be a strong incentive for an organization to attempt to 
acquire as many addresses as possible under current policy, with the 
intent to transfer them for a profit after IANA exhaustion.  Similarly, 
an organization might wish to speculate on a rising price for IPv4 
addresses, by acquiring addresses via transfer while the price is low, 
intending to transfer them later at a higher price.

It is our belief that such speculative behavior is antithetical to the 
goal of smoothing the upcoming transition, so we attempted to introduce 
mechanisms to ensure that transfers occur only between organizations 
with a legitimate surplus of addresses, and those with a legitimate need 
for them.  The period selected (24 months) seemed like a good balance 
between eliminating the quick-profit motive for speculation, while 
allowing a legitimate transition of an ISP from needing IPv4 addresses 
to being able to transition a surplus after moving to IPv6 or otherwise 
freeing up addresses in use.

Having said that, the time periods in this proposal are somewhat 
tentative, and we have always intended to change them as needed to 
reflect the community's consensus.  So if you would like to make an 
argument for shorter or longer timeframes on this or any other clause, 
please do.

Thanks,
Scott