[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-146 Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

[Matthew Kaufman]

On May 4, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> On May 4, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On May 4, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 3, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/3/2011 3:42 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sure... back when there was a free pool, making them jump through the extra hoops every 3 months to show that they're doing the right thing makes (some) sense... but once there isn't, every time they get space might be their last.
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, and since the "ARIN Community" is mostly made up of the "haves" and has almost no representation (if any) from the "have nots" I have no expectation that there will be widespread support for fixing transfer policies for the "have nots".
>>>> 
>>> If this is true, it is only because the have-nots have, thus far, chosen not to subscribe to the list and
>>> participate. If you know them and feel they are being substantially disadvantaged in this debate, the
>>> rational solution is to encourage them to subscribe and chime in.
>> 
>> I am claiming that the future "have nots" are totally unaware today that they need to participate in order to be able to do what they haven't yet started in the future.
>> 
>> My 7 year old isn't lobbying for rollbacks on the new restrictions for teen drivers this week either, because he simply hasn't thought about driving himself around enough to realize that his ability to take his brother out with him when he turns 16 has been eliminated in this state.
>> 
>> Matthew Kaufman
> 
> So you are saying that some group of (potentially non-existent as yet) companies that will
> be run by people who are not yet adults could be disadvantaged in the IPv4 world by the
> policies we are adopting

I was making an analogy to a similar situation with different time scales.

The companies probably already exist, and are run by adults, but haven't yet started growing such that they need additional IPv4 space during the transition. Or are about to be started, by adults, and will need IPv4 space during the transition.


> , and, so, we should sell address space to the highest bidders
> on longer-term time horizons in order to somehow prevent that from happening?
> 

We should make the difficulty of acquiring space as equal as possible for both these new or recent entrants as it is for the more established (who already have the advantage that they can compress down their own usage of space they already hold).

Before runout the "only 3 months" serves to make the organization come back repeatedly to ARIN as a documentation process, but the addresses are just as available every 3 months as they are every 12.

After runout, the "only 3 months" serves to put one class of orgs at a significant disadvantage when it comes to acquiring the space they will legitimately need for their own growth.

> I'm sorry, I just can't equate the outcome of the proposal to the protection of the
> parties you are describing.
> 
> I also think it is unlikely your 7 year old will be in charge of a company in less than
> 9 years. As such, I'm inclined to believe that by the time he is, any potential for
> meaningful IPv4 based companies will be long passed by that time.

Again, I was making an analogy. (And you don't know my 7 year old.) But there's definitely companies that have been launched just this year that, if successful, will need more IPv4 space than they have now in order to get through the transition... likewise, there are numerous companies that are going to find that selling off their space is a better business plan than continuing to slowly fail because their idea wasn't as popular. Friendster's space goes to the next Facebook, as it were.

Matthew Kaufman