[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy

Scott Leibrand sleibrand at internap.com
Wed Jun 25 13:23:33 EDT 2008

Kevin Kargel wrote:
> But those are not the only choices.  Those are just the only choices
> that allow us (network businesses) to take advantage of the situation to
> take even more money.   

Can you elaborate on what the other options are, and how they would work?

> Have some faith in the system and the community.  Cooperative anarchy
> has worked well for the internet up till now.  I believe it will
> continue to serve in the future.  People will continue to work together
> so that networks can interoperate, and will find creative and working
> solutions to problems when they are needed.

I suspect that one of those creative solutions will be to find and use 
ways to get around ARIN's restrictions on IPv4 address transfers.  In 
that case, do you think we should sue such innovators, or modify our 
policies to allow them to do what's needed?

2008-2 does not "create an artificial market".  It is simply a partial 
deregulation that relaxes transfer policy for IPv4 addresses, and gives 
the community more flexibility to deal with free pool exhaustion.

> I am trepiditious that should we (ARIN) create an artificial market that
> the government may see it as a commodity and emplace the controls and
> restrictions governing those (for the "good of the people").  Going
> along with that should the government "try" to govern the IP market then
> they will need to pay for that action somehow.  The primary means the
> government has of paying for things is taxes.  I don't know about you
> but I really don't want any new taxes.

Generally the US government tends to keep a hands off approach 
unless/until there is a major market failure.  For an example, look at 
the history of banking regulation prior to 1929.  And as a specific data 
point to this concern, it's worth noting that ARIN's Counsel has said 
that he does not consider government regulation to be a risk of adopting 
2008-2.  My own opinion is that we're more likely to get the government 
involved if we maintain current policy and try to crack down on transfer 
attempts than if we put in place a community-consensus-based policy 
setting out guidelines for allowing such transfers.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:sleibrand at internap.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy:
> whythetriggerdate?
> Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> I strongly oppose any effort to create an artificial IP commodities 
>> market.  I know it is a philosophical stand and will draw many flames,
>> but the Americans who most benefit from access to internet are the low
>> to middle income groups, and adding even small charges to that access 
>> could take internet out of their grasp.  Anything we can do to prevent
>> raising that cost will benefit society.  While we are all more 
>> comfortable than many families, please don't forget those who have to 
>> make hard decisions budgeting for residential information services.
> Which will raise costs to those groups more: denying their ISPs the
> ability to get new IPv4 addresses?  Or allowing them to make a choice of
> whether or not to get addresses on the transfer market?
> If you're not sure, consider an analogy: which would it be better to
> tell a low-income family? "I'm sorry, gas is too scarce, so we stopped
> selling it here: you'll need to ride the bus." or "I'm sorry gas is so
> expensive: if it works better for you, you might want to consider riding
> the bus instead."
> -Scott
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list