[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:01:59PM -0600, James Hess wrote:
> My concern with the proposition is it is also a financial incentive
> not to return IP space that should be returned.  Why return space now
> for no incentive, when new more encouraging incentives may be adopted
> later?

Unfortunately I feel as if that genie was let out of the bottle
when the first transfer proposal was made in APNIC.  Since then
there have been a number of other proposals prior to this one, all
of which may have in part sent that message.

I don't see a way to put the genie back in the bottle.

> Greater scarcity expected later could be expected to result in higher
> bids and thus better
> incentives;  i.e. such a policy actively encourages speculation, since
> the exact system by
> which IP space can be easily monetized can now be seen.

Except that there is a risk of collapse.  If the price goes too
high it is cheaper to move to IPv6, ISP's move to IPv6 relatively
rapidly and value of IPv4 plummets.

It has long been my believe the higher the spike in prices the
faster the fall in prices will occur, in both time frame and rate.
There is a significant risk to waiting any length of time.

> The policy proposed provides no hard limits on the number of dollars
> ARIN would be willing
> to allow recovery to cost for a given address block size.

Correct.  I see no reason to put an upper bound on the price, those
who are bidding will do that for ARIN by setting a maximum bid.

> And appears to fail to require concessions from parties partaking of
> financial incentives
> (such as signing a RSA for any other legacy space they might have)

My model was to change as little as possible, so that is correct.
Today a legacy holder can voluntarily return their block without
any other "concessions" like having to sign an RSA for other blocks
they may hold.

I firmly believe ARIN will require a contract for any exchange of
money, and as such will have to have a contract for the return of
space.  I have yet to hear anyone articulate a reason why that
should be the LRSA/RSA on a return which I will also caveat that
there is no legal or staff analysis on this yet and they may be the
best to know.

What makes no sense to me though is to peanlize someone for returning
space; that's a prime way to make sure there is no supply.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20081123/6fd4d364/attachment.sig>