[arin-ppml] the Transfer Policy Argument Space

[John Curran]

On Sep 3, 2008, at 6:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I, for one, would very much love to hear a direct answer to 4e and
> the subsequent opposing question from Steve Ryan.  My impression
> so far is that they are approximately equal, but, I do not feel like
> I have received any clear indication from Steve on this.
>
> OTOH, I suspect that it may be very hard for Steve to do so as these
> could be very uncertain.

Owen -

   I'm not Steve Ryan (and he's thankful of that :-), but let
   me pose a thought exercise which may provide some insight
   into question 4e and its converse...

   At a point in time when ARIN has effectively no remaining
   available space to satisfy requests under the current IPv4
   policy space, how should ARIN best fulfill its incorporation
   duties to "to enhance the growth of the Internet .. by
   encouraging the exploration and implementation of solutions
   to Internet Protocol number scarcity issues"?  For instance,
   how would two parties seeking to transfer IPv4 address space
   (e.g. an address holder who could free up significant address
   space through consolidation efforts, and an ISP constrained by
   their inability to obtain additional IPv4 number resources)
   view ARIN's fulfillment of its duties if there is neither a
   more relaxed transfer policy nor a clear community statement
   of why such a policy is undesirable?

/John
(my views alone; this message was prepared in 100% deaggregate-
  free route announcements ;-)