[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy: whythetriggerdate?

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:01 PM
> To: Tom Vest; Owen DeLong
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy: 
> whythetriggerdate?
> 
> Tom:
> I'm still waiting for an explanation of how your theory that 
> "IPv4 transfer markets will give incumbents unbreakable long 
> term market power" squares with the fact that ETNO, the 
> organization of telecom incumbents in Europe, has come out 
> strongly against IPv4 address transfer markets.** 

I don't presume to speak for Tom or to interpret ETNO, but I
can offer some theories.
Predictability is of great value to large companies.  ETNO
explains. . .

--
Principle 2 Development of a market for IP addresses (legal or illegal)
should be discouraged.
NB: This is intended to avoid any disruptive impact on Public address
allocation processes that are well understood and accepted, and embodies
fairness. It also maintains the public nature of this address resource.
http://www.etno.be/Portals/34/ETNO%20Documents/Information%20Society%20i
2010/CP082%20-%20NANI%20CP%20IPv4%20Exhaust.pdf
--

I would further speculate that pricing stability in particular is
valuable to large companies, and if they began having to
pay (possibly at inflated speculator prices) for a number resource 
that is currently negligibly cheap, it would be disruptive.


 
> **When the .net TLD was up for renewal, the OECD recommended 
> auctioning it off. Some people objected that such a procedure 
> would mean that .net would surely be re-assigned to VeriSign 
> because "it had the most money."
> Then, VeriSign came out publicly with a news release strongly 
> opposing auctions and insisting that only a beauty contest 
> oriented around "stability and security" could possibly 
> assign .net to the right operator. And what do you know, a 
> few months later .net was reassigned to VeriSign, because of 
> its "importance to the security of the Internet infrastructure..." 

If VeriSign would win either way, why would they choose the
expensive auction path?


I don't mean to suggest the I endorse either ETNO or VeriSign
positions or actions.  I only mean to offer the perspective 
that it is possible to hold two viewpoints without being 
inconsistent.

Lee