[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund

Geoff Huston gih at apnic.net
Mon Nov 24 17:25:51 EST 2008

> Transparency can be required of all transfers, whether or not they are
> forced to go through ARIN. Forcing them to go through ARIN, however
> prima facie would reduce its monitoring and enforcement costs of the
> transparency requirement -- assuming (a big if) that it can  
> effectively
> force everyone into its mediation. The more it ties its mediation to
> non-matching functions, the stronger the incentives it creates to find
> other intermediaries or to bypass it completely.

So what you are saying is that the mediation role would be more likely  
to be effective (used by all relevant actors in the market) it it were  
not also required to place other criteria (i.e. "demonstrated need')  
on the transactions it is able to mediate. Have I correctly understood  
your argument?

I must admit some personal skepticism over proposals that advocate the  
same body (the RIR) undertaking a title function and a mediation  
function in so far as the title agency is one that appears to be most  
effective when the agency is a trusted neutral independent body, and  
I'm unclear how such a body can also act in a role as market  
facilitator. Is my view overly cautious?



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list