[arin-ppml] Draft proposal that needs some wordsmithing

[Mike Burns]

Hi David and thanks,

What about a time limit to simply sell to a separate entity upon a resource 
review finding of no need?
Although theoretically that sale could be made to an entity who was not 
subject to needs analysis,  if the entity is separate, I assume that most 
addreses in the market will find their way into use. True they could sell to 
a speculator, but I don't believe speculators will make up a majority of the 
market, which I believe will be mostly people who geniunely need IPv4 
addresses. If we ensure the buyer is separate, at least they couldn't sell 
it to themselves, effectively. This would be a tool for ARIN to force 
hoarders to sell.

The price for these addresses is estimated to be around $10 now, in an age 
of free addresses for the asking ( you know what I mean) from our RIR.
If prices go up after free pool exhaust, as classic economics predicts, 
these things will, through sheer power of thier value, find their way to 
use, if the market allows them to flow freely.

I just don't think the problem of hoarders is so great that it requires 
ARIN's energies to do resource reviews for need at all. I think the price of 
addresses will do that far better than the history of  Section 12 recoveries 
suggests would happen, without the expenditure of any ARIN time or treasure.

But I would call your rule the "anti-hoarding rule" for future reference, 
meaning the imposition of some time to transfer after a determination of 
no-need through existing recovery policies.

You are right that I do not wish to do away with needs requirements for IPv6 
or ASNs, or the 8.2 transfer policies that apply to those resources.
Regards,
Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>; "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft proposal that needs some wordsmithing


> On 5/5/11 15:43 CDT, Mike Burns wrote:
>> Hi list,
>> I tried to put together a proposal to end needs requirements for
>> transfers and I used the APNIC policy as a framework.
>> The problem is that as the proposal is structured below, there is a
>> problem with the application of ARIN Resource Review policies in section 
>> 12.
>> Even if the transfer happens without regard to need, since the
>> transferred resources would be received by an ARIN account holder and
>> would be subject to ARIN's policies, then ARIN could feasibly do a
>> resource review immediately post transfer to effectively retain a needs
>> requirement.
>> My intent is that ARIN resource reviews continue to happen for purposes
>> other than need.
>> So for fraud, for hijackings, for failure to pay ARIN's bills, I support
>> resource review and recovery.
>> But not for need.
>> I was hoping not to have to mess with section 12 of the NRPM. Can
>> somebody suggest a way to modify my draft proposal to effect my intent
>> in a graceful manner which doesn't require modifications to section 12?
>
> What if we don't eliminate resource reviews for IPv4, but in the case of a 
> finding of unused IPv4 resource the resource must be transferred to 
> someone who will put them into use within 12 month or they must be 
> returned.
>
> Basically allow the market to operate freely, but enforce results based 
> regulation on the system.  Use the resources, find someone else who will, 
> or return them to the pool so ARIN can allocate them.  Just trying to 
> think outside the box here.  If we could find a way to make something like 
> that work I might I might be willing to go for non-needs based transfers. 
> You get the intent of the needs basis on the backside instead of on the 
> front-side.  I think we might end up with what we both want in a system 
> like that.
>
> But, there is another issue too;
>
> You are completely replacing all of section 8 with something that only 
> allow for the the transfer of IPv4 addresses.  We need to retain the 
> general M&A transfer policy because that allows for transfer of IPv6 and 
> ASNs in those cases.  Even if we were to completely abandon needs basis 
> for IPv4, which I'm not convinced of yet, I'm completely unconvinced that 
> we want to do that for IPv6 and ASNs, and I haven't heard you arguing for 
> that anyway.
>
>
>
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================