[ppml] Securities Act 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1)

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:41 PM
> To: michael.dillon at bt.com
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Securities Act 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1)
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> We understand your concern, as does ARIN, the BoT, President, and 
> counsel.  Thank you for raising the issue.  As others have explained, 
> the way we've been asked to make policy is to first come up with the 
> policy that makes the most sense for the community.  ARIN 
> counsel will 
> provide a legal assessment of each policy proposal when it 
> comes before 
> a public policy meeting.  If there are areas of particular 
> concern, they 
> will be addressed before any policy proposal is adopted by the BoT.
> 

Scott,

  I understand your point of view but...

  When making policy you don't go out and make the policy the way
you want it then ask a bunch of lawyers to try to cudgel it around
to fit within existing law or find a bunch of loopholes you can
use.

  What you do is get educated as to ALL of the issues surrounding
a particular policy choice BEFORE you make policy.

  Michael's got a valid point, although I think he's not properly
making it.  I'll try to reframe this here.

  Michael's trying to say that if ARIN sets itself up as a "market
oversee'r"
they are in effect putting themselves into a position where they are judge
and jury and sentence executioner.  You and others may claim that use of
language like "Paying a bounty to a current registrar of an IP block is
not buying that IP block it is merely adjusting the mechanism ARIN uses
to assign an IP block so the paying organization is then registered with a
particular
IP block" is lightyears different than "orgs buying the property of an
IP block" but this is a baloney argument - if it looks, walks, and quacks
like
a duck, it's a duck.  Any IPv4 "market" that is created is going to resemble
every other commodities futures market in existence because that is the
only way that you can run such things successfully, that is WHY all of
those commodities futures markets resemble each other.  And it's only a
short step from "resembling" to "is" for a regulatory agency to make.

  Michael is saying that if ARIN creates a commodities futures market, that
all the protesting in the world that their commodities futures market "isn't
really a commodities futures market, it's something special" is going to
fall
on deaf governmental ears - it is tanasmount to waving a red flag in front
of
a bull and begging for the government (SEC in this case) to come in and
regulate it.

  Your only defense is that the lawyer who is on retainer by the
organization
that is going to benefit from this market is saying it's OK so SFU - well
please
stop insulting our intelligence, we weren't born yesterday.

  If you really, really want this thing, you had better now start accepting
that creating a secondary IPv4 "market" whether legal with current law or
not, is likely going to attract undesirable governmental attention.

  Your task here in defending this IPv4 market proposal is not to play a
George Bush and tell us not to worry there's no problem.  Your job is
to justify WHY the benefits of creating this secondary IPv4 trading market
will outweigh any headaches that may come with that undesirable
regulatory attention that Michael is saying is a sure thing to come.

  Michael's arguments are speculation of what MIGHT happen should
this market come into existence.  Your argument is speculation of
what WILL happen if this market comes into existence.  You have a
much easier argument to make, so quit taking the lazy man's way
out of just pulling a George (there's no recession) Bush and start
actually adressing the concerns.


Ted