[arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1 review

[Scott Beuker]

> Is failing to return that _justified_ space to ARIN "hoarding"?  I don't
> think so.  I'm not "hoarding" my house, but if you offer me enough money
> for it, I'll agree to move; failing to donate my house to charity, just
> because I _could_ live elsewhere, is not hoarding.

In my eyes, no it's not, but that doesn't mean *real* hoarding wouldn't be
a consequence of a policy proposal like this, with no provisions to stop it.

It would be like the government offering a $5 refund for any returned car
hub caps for recycling. Sounds good when you think of it from the point of
view of a good honest citizen, but the negatives outweigh the positives
once you've factored in how it would affect those motivated by greed.

As I said:

>> I understand the desire to motivate people to free up IPs, but I can't
>> support a policy that also encourages pre-exhaustion hoarding.

What I mean by that is that I understand this is well intentioned, but if
it's not done properly it's going to do a lot more harm than good.

Maybe this is where we differ; I have no illusions that bringing a small
supply of IPv4 space back to market is going to accomplish anything
significant... supply will outstrip demand badly.

At best, this open market thing is all just a big distraction that eats
into my time better spent deploying IPv6 as I have to explain to my
organizations executives why a market won't save us. At worst, the
possibility of turning something that is free now into money later triggers
rampant hoarding and speculation that draws exhaustion artificially closer
and further cuts into the already limited time we have to push IPv6 into
ubiquitous use.

Don't make things worse than they already are with a poorly thought out
policy.

Thanks,
Scott Beuker