[arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund

[Martin Hannigan]

During the last meeting there was a suggestion for improved transfer
statistics and logging of transfers publicly. I haven't followed up on
it. If it happened, we could probably reverse engineer the question of
'qualification and the gray market' looking at that data. My feeling
is that its not ARIN region policy currently fueling the transfers,
its other regions policies.

Do you disagree that a buy back is likely to cause a fee increase?
Hard to second guess without the staff summary and an actual cost, but
I think its a reasonable assumption.


Best,

Marty

On 4/10/09, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:08:06PM -0400, Martin
> Hannigan wrote:
>>    This may be ineffective. Considering that transfers with cash benefit
>>    are occurring now, it may be worthwhile to consider making policies
>>    like this one "emergency".
>
> All of the offered transfer policies (2008-2, 2008-6, 2009-1, 2009-4)
> require the "buyer" to qualify for the space under current ARIN
> rules.  That is, they must go through the exact same process they
> go through to get space from ARIN (for normal ARIN fees) in order
> to be able to transfer space.
>
>>    Are we not simply acknowledging the gray market with this policy and
>>    attempting to compete? I think that if ARIN offered a price lower than
>>    the current $250K per /16 for example (~$4 per /32),  they would not
>
> Are the folks currently paying $250k per /16 able to qualify under
> existing ARIN policies?  If so, why are they paying $250k for
> something they can get from ARIN for $4500.
>
> More importantly, if they can't qualify, none of the proposals help.
> None of the proposals will make any difference positively or
> negatively on a "black" or even "grey" market.
>
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>