[arin-ppml] the Transfer Policy Argument Space

[Bill Darte]

Apparently it has always been so...to wait and not return the space.
Nothing has changed in that.

I also think that it is not in the interest of the industry for ARIN to
advocate for a 'paid' transfer market.
Indeed, I think it is in the interest of the industry for ARIN to abhor
it.

If people to not want to play nice in the sandbox, then someone else may
end up making the rules. Those that want to profit by not making excess
resources available run the very real risk (IMO) that the governance
model will change. 

The rules are what they are, the tradition is what it has been,.... that
self-governance model and working together has been very successful.  

bd



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:55 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: Howard, W. Lee; John Curran; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] the Transfer Policy Argument Space
> 
> Bill Darte wrote:
> > My personal opinion is:
> >
> > "The ARIN Board of Trustees on behalf of ARIN and the community at 
> > large requests that as a service to that community, holders 
> of address 
> > space which is available to return, or which they are 
> willing to make 
> > available for return, should do so at their earliest 
> convenience.  On 
> > behalf of the community that will need these addresses as 
> the industry 
> > transitions to IPv6, ARIN thanks you."
> >   
> 
> I think that's a great statement.  However, playing Devil's 
> Advocate for a moment, how are you going to get past the 
> argument that those orgs, rather than return space for free 
> today, may be able to wait a few years and sell that space to 
> the highest bidder?  Unless one believes that the odds of a 
> liberalized transfer policy being adopted are exactly zero, 
> it's in the org's selfish interest _not_ to return space.
> 
> S
>