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

[Leo Vegoda]

On 12/04/2009 6:25, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

[...]

> who asks.  I bet there's a good chance he can fool someone into
> buying the block.

Like a bridge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker

> ARIN deals with these situations already.  I'm sure more than once
> someone has tried to update a block with stale contact information
> and it has looked suspicious to ARIN.  As such they have done
> additional checks to figure out who the legitimate holder is and
> verify the update.

I am fairly sure that sort of thing isn't allowed in most places. Couldn't
we just let the law take its course?

> I'll also note you've made an assumption with 'spending the kind
> of money you have mentioned'.  You'll note in the examples I use I
> always use values like $5, or $10.  Other folks, like the poster I
> was replying to use $250,000 per /16.

I was thinking of your message,
<20090411211723.GA99567 at ussenterprise.ufp.org>, in which you suggest a price
of $50k for that /16.

> I don't know where prices will end up, and more importantly they
> /will/ change over time.  I don't think it is any more of a wacky
> prediction to think some /22's will go for $5000 than it is to think
> a /16 will go for $250,000.  There are plenty of companies where
> if the $5000 purchase was holding up the roll out of the new product
> expected to generate $500 million in reveneue would that would make
> the purchase with a very small amount of due dilligence.

Indeed. But I don't think the kind of consumer protection issue you raise
here is central to whether this proposal will work better than a simpler
proposal. While it might make fraud harder, I doubt a simpler proposal makes
it more likely or less illegal. Unless people aren't being careful about
what they buy and and how they pay for it we shouldn't need to worry. I am
not convinced that we can create an effective system to protect people from
themselves.

Regards,

Leo