[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

[Scott Leibrand]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> 		Generally, the expectation is that the listing
>> 		service data will be as open and public as possible
>> 		with the intent of allowing as much information as
>> 		possible to potential transferors/transferees prior
>> 		to engaging in the process.
> 
> Will this be a real-time listing service to minimise the risk
> that an insider would have access to data about available blocks
> before the general public?
> 
> If so, then that is considered to be an OTC (Over-The-Counter) bulletin
> board and it may be subject to SEC regulation, depending on just
> what is being traded. It seems to me that the IP address contracts
> being traded might be considered to be some kind of OTC derivative.
> Since the traders in this market would not be considered to be
> sophisticated
> investors by the SEC, this could fall under one of the Congressional
> Acts
> that regulate trading under the jurisdiction of the SEC.
> 
>> 		Nobody present at the BoF was prepared or qualified
>> 		to speak on behalf of ARIN from a legal perspective.
> 
> Is ARIN Counsel qualified to speak about the legal ramifications
> as far as the SEC are concerned? Not all lawyers deal with all
> areas of law.

I personally am confident that ARIN Counsel will be able to speak to 
this issue.  If the individual lawyers we've been dealing with so far 
(Steve and Ben) don't deal with that area of law, I know they have the 
resources to engage someone who does.


> Companies will build out IPv6 networks and eventually begin
> retiring their IPv4 addresses. And as far as the "have nots"
> are concerned, there is no law preventing them from simply 
> carving up 126/8, a large block that was given to a Japanese
> cable company. Or any other large block that seems relatively
> unused on the North American Internet.

There is no law preventing them from utilizing addresses uniquely 
registered to another party, but there is pretty strong policy in place 
that will prevent them from being able to announce a route covering 
those addresses into the DFZ.  That basically makes such addresses 
equivalent to RFC 1918 space.  If you think additional private IPv4 
space is needed, there was a policy proposal in APNIC to reserve a /8 
for shared use by LIRs that is being taken to the IETF.  But the problem 
we're trying to solve with transfer policy is different: providing for 
the continued availability of unique global IPv4 addresses after free 
pool exhaustion.

-Scott