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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:13 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> 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.
> 
> 

I just see no point to publicizing the figure, and a lot
of time-wasting and diverting-from-IPv6-focus happening if
the figure is published.

If your in support of a transfer market you need to ask
yourself which is more important?  Getting the IPv4 numbers
reallocated, or waving around a bunch of pricing for some
political agenda?

I see no problem with ARIN staff communicating to would-be
sellers and would-be buyers what the current market rate is
under NDA.  Not publicizing the pricing is no deterrent to this
proposal and it really takes the air out of a lot of 
potentially inflammatory rhetoric.

DO you really want people publically bitching because 2 months
ago an IPv4 block they bought today for $500 was going for
$200 and they feel cheated?  Or they buy that $500 block then
a week later the published "index" shows the price down to
$400 because someone turned in a /8 they didn't need anymore?

We need to be encouraging people to go to IPv6.  Publicizing the
current "bounty" for free IPv4 just draws attention to
IPv4 at the expense of IPv6.  If members of the community think
that ARIN's non-publically-disclosed pricing is unfair, then
I have a simple solution for them - don't buy IPv4.

Ted