[arin-ppml] incentives are better than penalties

[Benson Schliesser]

On 1 Aug 10, at 3:23 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> I personally think that you are getting lost in the kumbayas here.
...
> There are people who would complain about paradise, so please let's not
> have anymore of this naivete.

I'm not talking about utopia, here.  You're inserting too much between-the-lines of my suggestion, and it is insulting to both of our intelligences.

> You said it yourself, orgs don't spend
> money on housekeeping to return addresses because there's no
> ROI.
> 
> However this is false.  After IPv4 runout, orgs will have plenty
> of efficiency motivation since that's the only way to self-generate
> IPv4 demands.  Orgs will do this for their own needs, they won't
> do it for other org's needs.


Your current position seems to be that no organization can be motivated to free up excess addresses for another.  This may be true under current policy, but ARIN can do better than status quo.  Thus the policy development process exists.

Everybody has a price, and there are a number of organizations with many more address resources than they will ever need.  This suggests that, with the right motivation, organizations with vast excess addresses would make them available.  Further, in time, organizations with marginally excessive address space would make them available albeit at a higher price.  Absent an IPv6 Internet, some day even those with existing business might be willing to close operations in order to sell their addresses, if somebody was willing to pay the price.

Of course, it would be best if this last group never existed.  But the first two groups could carry us through a number of years.  We can motivate these organizations, while encouraging Internet growth and operations, by embracing a well-balanced market approach.  This isn't a beautiful world full of peace and love, it's competition regulated to arrive at the desired end.

Cheers,
-Benson