[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

>   If your objections center around legal risk, then I would 
> encourage you to trust (for the sake of policy development) 
> that ARIN will appropriately manage that risk, and address 
> whether the policy would be good or bad for the Internet 
> community, and why.

My objections center around wasted time. In other words, if 
the laws governing "markets" prevent ARIN from creating the
kind of market in IP address blocks that many people are
promoting, I believe it is a waste of time to put any effort
into the groundwork such as the transfer policy. If this
policy passes, it amounts to holding out a carrot which
turns out to be a piece of dyed silicon rubber. In other
words, it is misleading to the public and to the holders of
ARIN's IP address allocations.

I would rather see more effort put into other areas of
ARIN's charter such as education and work on things like
the route registry. How about building and documenting
a model IPv6 deployment architecture for ISPs showing how
a network can begin using IPv6 addresses for growth while
maintaining transparent access to IPv4 Internet resources.

--Michael Dillon