[arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please help?

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I think sooner is better.  One major benefit of the sunset clause
> is that it puts a limit on speculation.  If someone "acquires" many
> blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know

There is an obvious logic problem here. 

Under all the transfer proposals that have made it into ARIN's pdp, ARIN has to assess and establish the "need" of the recipient before any blocks can be transferred. That in itself catches speculation. 

Don't think that will work? Hmm, the critics have proven too much. Assume ARIN and all the other RIRs can be duped into handing out IPv4 addresses to organizations that don't really need them, "using whatever ploy works." Well, then, bad actors don't need a transfer policy, they can just apply for addresses now and hoard them. 

When addresses are scarce, hoarding is bad. Can we agree on that? Especially when it can serve as a barrier to entry. 

In that case, we need a transfer policy even more, because hoarding by people who don't need addresses is by definition worse than speculating in addresses, which at least moves them to people who need them enough to be willing to pay for them. 

Or is Mr. Griffith assuming that needs-based allocation will work perfectly when we don't have a transfer policy and suddenly break down when we do? Is this anything more than an expression of his hostility to a transfer policy? 

Can we stop confusing the debate over a sunset clause with an opinion poll on whether you like transfer markets or not?

Let's face facts: the date of a sunset is inherently arbitrary. Arbitrariness in a situation already characterized by massive and potentially crippling uncertainty is bad, really bad. We won't know whether the policy sunsets at a date before we even widely use it and lack enough evidence to make a decision, or whether it comes in the middle of a smashing success, or it comes two years after some disastrous failure. 

What we do know is that the moment the clock runs out we have to have this same stupid debate over again, regardless of its relevance. 

You don't need a sunset. If the policy causes known problems, modify it or repeal it, with the burden of proof falling on those who claim there is a problem. (Contrary to Griffith's completely unfounded and legally uninformed speculations, transfer recipients who sign an RSA will have no basis for a lawsuit claiming takings.)

If it doesn't cause known problems, leave it in place.