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

[Matthew Petach]

On 4/11/09, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 01:57:07PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>  >    My thought was more along the lines of why would "sellers" agree to an
>  >    ARIN sponsored program when they can instead contact their nearest
>  >    domain name broker and start negotiating at higher rates? For this to
>  >    succeed, ARIN would be forced to recover at those market rates, gray,
>  >    black, or green, and passing those costs on will be _more_ expensive
>  >    due to program costs and cost of capital even if reimbursed. If there
>  >    are no "sellers", there is no ARIN recovery program in the context of
>  >    the policy, FWIW.
>
> ARIN would be paying market rates if and only if those who still
>  need IP space are willing to pay market rates.
>
>  I hesitate to call ARIN a "pass-through" in this scheme, but from
>  a financial perspective that is what is going on.  Those who need
>  IP space figure out how much they are willing to pay (via a bid to
>  ARIN), ARIN goes off and recovers the space at market rate not to
>  exceed the bids.

In that case, can we consider calling this an 'escrow' function
rather than a 'recovery fund'?

I don't like the idea of sending a check for $250,000 to ARIN for
them to put in their "recovery fund'" in the hopes they find a
seller.

However, if I indicate an interest in purchasing a block of size X
at a cost not to exceed $250,000, and ARIN finds an entitty
willing to free up the space at or below that cost, I have considerably
fewer qualms about having ARIN act as the escrow agent for the
funds while the transaction is proceeding.

Can the proposal be edited to more accurately reflect the
function being provided as that of an escrow service, rather
than a recovery fund?

Thanks!

Matt