[arin-ppml] "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )
bensons at queuefull.net
Sun Feb 6 00:32:36 EST 2011
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:00 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> But the situation has changed. Soon, we will no longer be rationing supply, because the supply is gone. As a result of IPv4 maturity, and the impending scarcity that entails, I'd suggest RIR policy should be to relax control of the resource. Allow a market to do what markets do best: efficiently distribute a scarce resource.
> There is presently the specified transfer that provides some support for
> a limited market of sorts, without departing from the conservation and
> aggregation goals in the policy framework.
> Is this insufficient to provide the incentive for efficient distribution?
> If a less restricted, more dynamic market is desirable, then would it
> be one that operated without consideration of the need or aggregation
> requirements (i.e. any size block transfer allowed, and to any party?)
> Some of these topics were discussed at length in the formation of the
> current specified transfer policy, so it would be good to discuss how
> the policy requirements have since changed.
The specified transfer service, in its current form, is not sufficient to facilitate efficient distribution. A less-regulated market would be much more dynamic and appealing to buyers and sellers, especially at this stage.
But, of course, neither of us wish to recommend a market system that damages the stability of the Internet. Given this fact, and per your suggestion, I'm working on some policy text that I hope to submit this coming week. I look forward to discussing the ideas and improving them based on the constructive feedback of the community.
More information about the ARIN-PPML