[arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18, 2009

[Matthew Kaufman]

Kevin Kargel wrote:
>
> A transfer system will inexorably raise the cost of doing business on the
> internet.  However you paint it this is a bad thing for the community and
> for society.  
Running out of IPv4 address will inexorably raise the cost of doing 
business on the IPv4 Internet for growing or new entrants *whether or 
not* there is a transfer system. Any new or growing entity that for 
whatever reason *needs* an IPv4 address that isn't available is a bad 
thing for that entity and possibly for the community.

And that's true even without pointing out that there already is a -- 
albeit more complicated to use -- transfer system in place today. If, 
for instance, that mechanism (buying existing entities or spinoffs of 
existing entities and recycling their addresses) was also made 
unavailable, the business cost to entities which need IPv4 space in 
order to keep growing or in order to enter the market will rise 
significantly (they would be required to use PA space from ISPs which 
might charge much more for it, or simply be unable to efficiently deploy 
the service they need to deploy, etc.) Even switching to IPv6 is a 
business cost to existing entities which cannot be avoided when IPv4 
addresses run out.

In short there's just no getting around a rise in the cost of doing 
business on the Internet, and whatever side effects that creates. So 
using an increase in cost to justify being against a transfer policy is 
akin to being opposed to a transfer policy because "if a transfer policy 
exists, the sun will rise tomorrow."

> I will continue to oppose P2P transfer policies whenever they
> are presented.
>   
This much is clear.

Matthew Kaufman