[arin-ppml] Q2: on Address Transfers - Overkill on the freeze period?

[McTim]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> In the ARIN proposal, the releasing party cannot have received any IPv4
> addresses, either from ARIN or from transfers, in the past 24 months, and
> cannot request any for the next 24 months. So anyone who participates on the
> release side of a transfer must remove themselves from the ARIN v4
> allocation/assignment process for a total of four years.
>
> Ostensibly, the rationale here is to prevent hoarding and speculation. But
> it seems like overkill. Is this intended to be punitive?

probably not Milton.  Prohibitive perhaps, but not punitive.

 Is the rationale
> really a Ted-style "you immoral bastards held on to address space you didn't
> need and so now we're going to screw you back" kind of an attitude?

I don't see that, what I see is "if you have free blocks to flog off,
then you won't need any more for a while, will you" rationale.

>
> The problem here is the huge disincentive it creates to release any address
> space. Unless the address block involved and the money exchanged is pretty
> darn large and the entity has zero chance of asking for any more ipv4, who's
> going to put up with a 4-year time out from mama ARIN?

Those who are moving to IPv6?!?

What's your goal here
> -- do you want to rub people's noses in the need-based ideology or do you
> want to get them to give up addresses?

Encourage v6 uptake is certainly a goal.

> Wouldn't it be simpler to block speculation the way RIPE proposes, and
> simply restrict -- on the recipient side -- transfer of the received
> addresses for two years?

Well, if it's simplicity your after in re: deterring speculation,
simply keep the status quo.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim