[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Sat Nov 22 12:50:55 EST 2008

In a message written on Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:41:00AM -0600, Randy Bush wrote:
> > ]   - Maintains the concept that unused addresses should be returned to
> > ]     the free pool.
> as opposed to being actually used by someone?

No, to be given out to those who need them.  Come on Randy, your
sarcasam is running a little too dry today.

> > ]   - Maintains need based addressing.
> put a needs-based restriction on direct transfer

And how do you propose ARIN enforce such a thing.  Hint, don't reply
here, reply on 2008-6 with that suggestion.  We'd love to know.

> > ]   - All transactions are two party transactions with ARIN as one of
> > ]     the parties.  The potential for multi-party legal disputes is
> > ]     reduced.
> without arin in the middle, all transactions will be two party.  with
> arin in the middle, they will, in reality, be three parties.

Actually, no.  The scheme as proposed in 2008-6 and the now defunct
2008-2 goes something like this:

Party A transfers space to Party B.
Party B tells ARIN they now have Party A's space.

That's Party A, B, and ARIN.

Specifically, consider this not unlikely scenario:

Party A transfers space to Party B.
Party B gives Party A a check.
Party B has ARIN register they now have the space.

The check bounces.

Party A sues Party B for the money, and simultaneously sues ARIN
to get the space put back in their name as the transaction was never
finished.  There are now three parties in court; and most importantly
ARIN potentially has no contract what so ever with Party A.  That's a
rather large disadvantage.

In this proposal:

Party A returns space to ARIN.
ARIN cuts Party A check.

Time passes.

ARIN hands out space to Party B.
Party B cuts ARIN a check.

if there is a problem with either of those two transactions the
resulting lawsuit will be between two parties only.

> > ]   - ARIN can provide transparency across all transactions in this
> > ]     system.
> and transparency will make the internet better because?

Transparency in pricing tends to lower the price and reduce volitility
in the price.  I'll leave it to you to see if you think lower and less
volitile prices are good for the Internet or not.

> > ]   - Reduces confusion to new entrants over where they should go to
> > ]     receive address space.
> i suspect that the trading floor will quickly become well known.

Trading floors, under a proposal like 2008-6.  There will be e-bay,
and brokerages, and private cabals (universities only selling to other
universities, for example).  How will a new entrant know where to get
the best price?  How will they even know they have found all of the
trading floors?

       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/20081122/7e30586f/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list