[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflictofinterest/IPaddresspolicy pitched directly to ICANN

[Mike Burns]

Now you would ask ARIN not only whether the addresses are justified in their opinion, but also to judge the financial motivations of the participants?
Under what policy would ARIN be able to have legacy addresses returned to the free pool as you describe?

In fact, the MS/Nortel deal is not the only transaction that has occurred, and the existence of tradeipv4.com and other sites is testimony to the likelihood it will happen again, policy or no policy.

Who knows which 80 companies were contacted? Wouldn't it be better if the whole thing was conducted in the open, so that ChinaTelecom could bid as well?

Why not an open and transparent marketplace free from artifical and easily-scammable justification regimes?

Regards,
MIke



  In fact one could very succinctly argue that precisely this example could/should trigger the ARIN / ICANN community to now officially adopt a tighter /explicit policy like example #7 I mentioned.

  7) Ask ARIN to prevent any and all transfers that are motivated purely by financial gain, and instead insist that such participants return IPv4 allocations to the unallocated pool "for the benefit of the Internet Community" once the existing allocation is no longer needed.



  Ray
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110502/b77bfba5/attachment.htm>