[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised andforwarded to the Board
martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs
Tue May 19 09:10:04 EDT 2009
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:04 PM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
Putting capital in ARIN's trust removes any leverage with that capital
that I may have. It would have to be signficant to matter, and likely
unfair since smaller allocations would pay smaller fees and members
with much larger allocations would be required to deposit larger sums.
I think that there is an air of discouragement with regards to raising
fees, in my personal opinion, even fees that would be paid interest in
escrow accounts. It would definitely be a fee.
More information about the ARIN-PPML