George Herbert george.herbert at gmail.com
Tue Apr 12 14:47:43 EDT 2011

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:
> This group does better when the discussion remains grounded in the
> proposals, and less so when analogy and hyperbole find their way in.
> Coming back to the issue at hand, seems to me the value of RFC 2050 has
> to do with preventing hoarding, and that it is as relevant today as it
> was when it was written.  I agree with Benson and Milton that a
> financial incentive to get address space to those who would buy it is
> important.  But who would buy an asset if they couldn't show need?  Only
> those who intend to sell it for more later.  I would be concerned about
> how that appeared to new entrants.

We're tangling up a bunch of issues, including -

A. Can a current legacy IP space owner / holder / whatever sell the IPs at all?

B. Can a current IP owner sell IPs to a speculator?

C. Or only to a legitimate user with need who failed to get an
allocation from a RIR?

We seem to be edging towards A = maybe, B = no, C = maybe.

I understand where this is coming from, and ethically support
something along those lines, but if the answer to A ever turns out to
unambigously be Yes, then someone denied the opportunity to sell to a
higher-value-offering speculator is likely to get litigious.

-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list