[arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:46 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:10 PM
> > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > Cc: 'Kevin Kargel'; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It wasn't necessarily a lie.  It could have been 
> completely legit at 
> > > the time.  May A is cutting back and has closed a bunch of 
> > > facilities.  Maybe A has acquired X, Y and Z and has 
> renumbered or 
> > > consolidated so it only needs one or two of the original 4.
> > > Maybe A is using RFC1988 or IPv6 internally and no longer 
> needs all 
> > > its original allocation.
> > > 
> > 
> > That wasn't the kind of thing I was talking about.  In 
> those cases the 
> > org that requested did so in accordance with the contract.
> > 
> > It's the orgs that supply totally bogus information in an 
> attempt to 
> > obtain numbers purely for speculatory purposes that are in 
> violation.  
> > A transfer market will encourage this kind of behavior 
> immensely IMHO.
> > 
> > Ted
> 
> What ever policy is adopted should distinguish legitimate 
> players from cheaters, and not just tar them all with the same brush.
> 
> You seemed to be claiming that anyone in A's position lied on 
> their original request for an allocation. 

Sorry you interpreted it that way but I did clarify the sentence with
the statement:

"...By giving IP Holder A the power to determine that it can relinquish IP
allocations on any other basis than what they were originally obtained on -
ie:
need.." 

> I agree that liars 
> shouldn't be able to benefit from their lies, but you need 
> more than this to distinguish them.
> 
> I'm just trying to tighten up the arguments so we aren't 
> fighting over straw men here.
>

Any discussion of a transfer proposal is going to create straw men.  We have
never done it before and we can only draw inferences on what will happen
by analogies to other markets that may or may not be similar.  And so
far, nobody including me has been able to find an analogous situation that
matches exactly.


Ted