[arin-ppml] 2009-1 comment

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George, Wes E [NTK] [mailto:Wesley.E.George at sprint.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:27 AM
> To: Kevin Kargel; John Curran
> Cc: arin ppml
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2009-1 comment
> 
> I have a minor issue with A, in that it's overbroad. I can understand
> limiting transfers between the same two parties to reduce abuses of the
> policy, but I don't see the value in limiting one party from receiving
> transfers from several different parties if they have justifiable need for
> the space and the resources to get it, or limiting one party from
> transferring blocks to several different parties if that's how they end up
> becoming available. It's quite possible that some parts of a block can be
> freed much more easily than others, and will lead to phased transfers.
> Rate-limiting them simply puts an artificial delay in making more blocks
> available for use.
> 
> Also, while I don't have a problem with a holding period, I completely
> oppose the language giving general requests precedence over directed
> transfers in E. It's simply not going to make things any more fair.
> The idea behind the directed transfers is to offset the costs incurred by
> freeing those blocks to be reused. I understand that you're trying to
> prevent a speculation market and sale of/profiting from IP assets, or this
> becoming a market for haves vs have nots, but this would essentially
> eliminate any incentive to complete any but the most basic (i.e. cheap or
> no cost to complete) efforts to free up unused space in the first place.
> The standard "good internet citizens don't hoard IPv4 space they're not
> using" argument isn't going to cause companies to spend real time and
> money freeing up space instead of simply sitting on it and letting the
> chips fall where they may. Therefore the result will be less space
> available for reallocation for the whole community, not more space
> available for which "the little guy" can now compete fairly (bankrolled by
> those companies with deeper pockets).

So long as there is free space available in the general pool then the
transfer applicants would be unaffected.  They would still be able to buy
and sell their IP's Making the transfer pool available to the general pool
would only come in to play post-runout.  What this would do is that post
runout organizations that do not have big bucks in their budgets will still
have a shot at the space.  

If the only solution is to edge the small organizations out of competition
then that is no solution at all.  I would rather see ARIN drop out and
resource registration revert to government.  That is most likely what will
happen anyway when the market problems start cropping up.  There would be
much more red tape and rigamarole but it would be an even playing field.

Perhaps it is time for ARIN to be more aggressive in reclaiming swamp space.

> 
> Thanks,
> Wes

-------------- 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/20090528/c67b5557/attachment.bin>