[arin-ppml] DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2011-1: GLOBALLY COORDINATEDTRANSFER POLICY (Legecy space)

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 12, 2011, at 2:02 PM, "Larry Ash" <lar at mwtcorp.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:55:35 -0500
> Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> Higher prices generally increase the number of sellers.  This is a good thing, given a scarce supply and ongoing need.
>>> An interesting perspective. So your argument here is that I should actually think that making things cost more
>>> is good for the community. Yeah, I'm not so convinced of that fact.
>> For some values of "more", yes - higher prices are good.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve etc.
> 
> Careful, I am a free market capitalist but even I would caution that the classical
> supply/demand curve has some build it assumptions. One of those is that as price
> goes up they will build more. In a market where the overall supply is strictly fixed
> no matter how high the price goes,  higher prices can attract speculators and attempts
> to corner the market which pushes demand. Under speculative pressure, demand can
> greatly outpace the increased supply. One only has to look at the current oil markets
> to see the effect of run away speculation.
> 
Agreed.

> We have been talking around the issue, but, that is exactly what we are
> trying to prevent by requiring need to be able to take control of a block
> of numbers. Otherwise a small number of mega-corps could corral all of
> the available addresses and parse them out for very high prices or worse
> only to their customers. Imagine a case where you could only
> get an IPV4 address if you were connected to MS or Comcast (insert your villain of choice).
> 
I thought I had stated this rather directly.

> Who cares, IPV4 is dead -- I would guess we would see TV adds that purports to show why
> you have to have a V4 address to "really be on the internet". Marketing has proven
> to be way more powerful than fact.
> 
> "Need" has always made me nervous because it's so subjective, but "no need"
> is just not acceptable.
> 
Agreed.

Owen
>