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

[David Farmer]

On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> We are neutral to this proposal with the exception of 4.X.5
> 
> We don't believe any purpose would be served by listing the
> dollar amounts, and can think of many scenarios where revealing
> them would compromise the bid system, and leak sensitive
> internal company data of "bidders"  If all mention of "pricing"
> was struck from this section we would be neutral on it as well.
> 
> Ted

Are you saying that pricing should be completely opaque?   

I think I agree that pricing shouldn't be completely transparent, 
that is revealing who paid how much for what, that is probably 
not a good idea.  

But I think a completely opaque system is a bad idea too;  I 
think what is proposed is fairly close to what is needed.

I think a Max, Min, and Average of successful bids for a period 
like a month is minimally needed to at least exposes what the 
competitive range of successful biding is.

Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular 
transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I think 
the community overall wants/needs some assurance that the 
system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal 
transparency is probably the best way to allow the community 
to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.



================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======