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

[Kevin Kargel]

My apologies for top loading, but it seemed best in this instance.

In first look at 2009-4 I do not hate it, (which I know will shock many of
you).  To my mind there are a few requirements for any transfer proposal
that seem to be met by 2009-4.

1.  ARIN should do any brokering.
2.  Anonymity must be maintained, the receiver should not know which IP's
they are getting or being considered for ahead of time in order to preclude
side deals and a grey market. Endpoints must not be allowed to negotiate.

One issue I do have is that the proposal is heavily slanted toward the big
organizations with section 4.X.4 where it states "Recovered IPv4 number
resources should be broken into smaller blocks only if there are no
bidders for the larger sized blocks"
I understand the rationale for this, but it would guarantee the big ISP's
first crack at any blocks leaving only leftovers for small and middle sized
operations.  This is not a level playing field.
I believe that ARIN will tend not to de-aggregate blocks any more than is
necessary and we can leave this operational feature to the prerogative of
staff.  It does not need to be in Policy.
I agree that the statement " ARIN should take all practical steps to
aggregate returned address blocks." should remain, but the rest of the
section can be managed by staff at their discretion.

I would suggest that the data reporting for section 4.X.5 be published when
or after it is thirty days old.  

I might add a section where IP seekers who advertise or solicit offers be
disqualified from the process.  Without this there is the probability of
seeker publishing a general notice that they would bid a million for a /8,
allowing the returner to submit a safe million dollar offering.  This would
be just a hidden version of peer-to-peer sales.

Another item that should be in place is a 90 day (or longer)
disqualification for any party that backs out of a brokered deal at or after
the point that an offer is tendered.




> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4
> RecoveryFund
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090413/150512c8/attachment.bin>