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

[Tom Vest]

FWIW, I agree with John's reasoning.

Based on the same reasoning, I think that the community should also  
solicit structured expert advice on the feasibility of ongoing  
maintenance of IP address registration data quality given:
-- the observed historical decay rate of other high value databases  
that are maintainable solely by individual incentive-driven voluntary  
action (e.g., "public" inter-provider route registries);
-- the existence of alternative mechanisms for "securing" uniqueness  
and/or "ownership" (formerly: unique beneficial usage rights) of  
number resources, e.g., bilateral contracts, contract law, armies of  
ever-eager lawyers, etc.
-- the existence and appeal of widely held values (e.g., privacy) that  
generally if not invariably conflict with the pursuit of uniqueness  
and identifiability through the mechanism of "public" / inter-provider  
registries; and
-- the impact of such conflicts on other, similar high value databases  
(e.g., domain registration).

The ARIN community might be marginally more competent to undertake  
this one than the aforementioned Nasdaq experts, but only marginally  
so...

TV

On Apr 13, 2009, at 4:36 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:

> If we are going to pursue this proposal very much further, we should
> get expert advice on the feasibility of operating (or outsourcing) a
> Market Maker constrained according to some specified features.
> Precluding naked shorts is probably a feature we all agree with.
> Should there also be a limit on the time that the Market Maker holds a
> prefix in its attempt to maximize aggregation and minimize
> deaggregation?  It seems to me that the ARIN community is just about
> an non-expert on market operation as Nasdaq experts are on network
> operation.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker
>
> John
>
> On 2009Apr13, at 4:13 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>
>> 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
>> ================================================
>> =======
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.