[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund
owen at delong.com
Sat Nov 22 12:22:22 EST 2008
On Nov 22, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Owen and Leo:
> I support the idea of ARIN being able to offer economic incentives for
> reclamation or reductions. The problem with your proposal, as Herrin
> seems to have pointed out, is that you have not developed a feasible
> mechanism for re-assigning the reclaimed resources in an environment
We can agree to disagree on this matter.
> Whatever your opinion of auctions, etc. you really, really need to get
> used to the fact that you _cannot_ maintain the old system of first
> come, first served needs-based allocations in a regime of ipv4
> Once the free pool is depleted (and even now, when its depletion is in
> sight) v4 allocations are about _relative_ value among competing
> applicants, not some absolute measure of technical justification.
Again, I think the most likely thing to happen here is we will agree
to disagree. I understand your position, but, I do not share it.
> In other words, there will be multiple applicants for the same address
> blocks and not all of them can be satisfied. All of them may have
> "justified need" in some sense. You _must_ therefore use a rationing
> principle. FCFS simply privileges those who invest in getting into
> first. I can think of 100 different ways that can happen that you will
> not like, including the development of a brokerage firms. That just
> shifts the bidding to the brokerage, it doesn't eliminate the bidding.
Please explain how a "brokerage" would be able to justify their "need"
under current policy? Holding IP addresses in order to monetize them
is not a valid need any where in ARIN policy.
> Whatever rationing principle is used ought to relate the allocation to
> the degree of economic value the buyer (or society) places on the
If you can show me a way that the delegation can be related to the
degree of benefit to society, I might be open to such a thing. However,
I don't think that economics are a good measure of that.
> Either you let auctions determine that, or you put ARIN into the
> business of deciding via beauty contests who or what is more
> valuable. I
> hope you understand how unfeasible the latter option is. If you don't,
> your staff and the community soon will.
Actually, I think that sticking as close to FCFS as possible avoids
Yes, it creates incentives for first movers in three categories.
creates incentives for first movers to get IPv4 before we run out.
Second, it creates incentives for first movers to get reclaimed IPv4
resources before they are exhausted. Finally, it creates incentives
to move to IPv6 when IPv4 resources are no longer available
in a cost-effective manner.
I don't see that as necessarily being a bad thing.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> I'm absolutely opposed to this alternative approach. The goal, here,
>> my opinion is to remain as close to the first-come/first-serve
>> justified need that we have in place now. The funding is strictly to
> deal > with the fact that getting people to do the right thing
>> The policy is written specifically to come as close as practicable to
>> existing situation while still attempting to preserve some flow of
>> addresses for people who need them.
>> Auctioning the addresses off to the highest bidder is, IMHO, not in
>> best interests of the community. Unfortunately, people on both sides
>> of this opinion will point to FCC spectrum auctions as a shining
>> of why it is a (good|bad) idea.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML