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

[John Santos]

On 8 May 2009 stephen at sprunk.org wrote:

> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > I believe the proof of what I am talking about is all of the unused IPv4 space that is not being returned so that it can be held as a speculative
> > commodity.  Inaction in itself is a proof.
> >   
> 
> You are assigning a motive without proof.  Yes, there is a lot of space 
> out there that could be returned and hasn't been.  I believe that in the 
> vast majority of cases it is abandoned, forgotten, or is being used 
> inefficiently and there is insufficient motivation to renumber.  I have 
> seen all of these cases in the wild many, many times; I have _never_ 
> been told "we won't return that space because we're hoping to sell it 
> one day."
> 
> My motivation for supporting liberalized transfers is to apply a 
> financial incentive to correct all of the problems above that I _have_ 
> seen.  If companies hear that they can get money for giving up space, 
> many (but not all) of them are going to do an inventory and find out 
> what they have but don't actually need so that they can cash in.  Would 
> I prefer altruistic motivation?  Certainly.  We've been trying that for 
> a couple of decades now, and it has resulted in a few returns, but 
> nowhere near as many as I'd hoped -- or as many as the community will 
> need in a few years.  It's time to quit pretending that altruism is 
> sufficient.
> 
> S
> 

Random thought of the day --  What about an IP deposit, like a returnable
bottle deposit?  Make a deposit with ARIN when you get your IP, get it
back (plus interest?) when you return it.  This money would not go to
ARIN; it would be more like an escrow account, but it would be motivation
for people with unused space to return it and get there nickels back.

I don't think it would be possible to make this retroactive, though.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539