[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised and forwarded to the Board

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew at matthew.at]
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 3:04 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised
> and forwarded to the Board
> 
> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > I agree that this version of 2009-1 is much better than the last.
> >
> > I still believe that section 8.3 establishes a de facto commodities
> market
> > in IPv4 addresses.  It is still my opinion that any IP addresses
> surrendered
> > should be made available to the community as a whole.
> >
> >
> If there's IP addresses that would be available if financial leverage
> was applied (for instance, people who could buy a big NAT with some of
> the money and release most of what they're using now), and you believe
> that the addresses surrendered should be made available under the
> existing inexpensive first-come, first-served basis, then perhaps either
> you or ARIN should find a way to outbid the people who'll be using this
> or the existing transfer policies to acquire addresses after run-out,
> and do that.
> 
> We already have a way to free up the addresses that people are willing
> to turn back in with no renumeration... what, other than you or ARIN
> applying money to the problem will free up others?
> 
> Matthew Kaufman

Why do we have to force others to free up IP addresses in the first place?
Why do you think that creating a commodities market is mandatory?
Why do you think that money is the only motivator?

Continuing on the established functional road without fixing what isn't
broken is a very legitimate option.

Perhaps you would be surprised to discover that if there were not an
artificial value placed on IPv4 space then as it became less useful
organizations would return it voluntarily.

So long as there is the possibility that we are going to establish and allow
an IP commodities market then nobody - including me - is ever going to be
able to voluntarily return space.  The bean counters won't allow it. 

Rather than helping the problem the fact that this market is being discussed
is exactly what is causing the hoarding.  By holding the carrot of financial
gain in front of resource holders you are guaranteeing that none of them
(with the exception of government) will be able to return space.

The cure is actually exacerbating the condition.

What will ease the problem will be if ARIN states unequivocally that orgs
will never be able to legally get monetary reward for IP addresses.  At that
point Admins will have the freedom to return IPv4 space.  Most organizations
try to operate legally and ethically.  Most organizations are concerned
about the health of the community.  

Creating an IPv4 commodities market is very definitely an example of
'cutting off your nose to spite your face'.  
-------------- 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/20090504/5e1c9eaf/attachment.bin>