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

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:sleibrand at internap.com]
> > * 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.
> 
> So it looks to me like the best way to accomplish what you want is to
> strike "or through this Simple Transfer policy" from the second
clause,
> leaving something like this:
> 
> * The transferor may not request any ordinary allocations or
assignments
> IPv4 allocations or assignments from ARIN within the subsequent 24
months.

That's good, but I am also interested in reducing the "time out" to 2
years total. I tend to think you only need one of those clauses, the
second one, or if you retain both, make the time period one year.

> (Striking the entire second clause would allow someone to transfer
away
> their current address holdings, and then get more addresses through an
> ordinary assignment, which I don't think we want to allow.)
> 
> That would have the effect of allowing someone to transfer away their
> space, and then turn around receive more space by transfer, perhaps at
a
> lower price.  Essentially, that allows someone to "short" IPv4
> addresses, while requiring "long" positions to be at least 24 months
> long.  It would also allow someone to transfer away their addresses,
> with the assurance that, if they end up needing addresses after all,
> they can get new addresses.

Yes, that's good. It also might allow someone to aggregate larger blocks

> Those, in turn, would add supply to the market, driving prices down
> somewhat.
> 
> I would not be opposed to such a change.  Can anyone else think of any
> negative implications that would outweigh the positives already
outlined?
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
> 
>