[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Mike Burns]

Hi Owen,

>Sorry, I call it as I see it. I think abandoning needs-based resource 
>management
>is an abandonment of the responsibility of stewardship in managing the 
>resources.

The needs requirement is a hold-over from the soon-to-be-past.
A needs requirement was mandatory when it came to allocating addresses from 
the free pool.
I hope I don't need to go over why this is so.
That requirement of stewardship was there to ensure that addresses were 
allocated to where they would be used efficiently.
Another requirement of proper stewardship, to my mind, is not making rules 
where they are not needed.
To maximize freedom to members of the community, isn't the lightest touch 
absolutely necessary for order what is demanded of the steward?

In a post-exhaust world, human greed will ensure address are used 
efficiently, so the stewardship need for justification can be eliminated, as 
it's raison d'etre has ceased to exist.

On the other hand, in a post-exhaust world where IPv4 addresses may increase 
in value, it is easy to see that conflict between address rights claimants 
is likely to rise.
This will naturally put stress on Whois that hasn't existed to that extent 
in an age of "free" address availability.
We have witnessed in the MS/Nortel transaction that ARIN policy is not 
completely aligned with the law, and the shabby way ARIN scurried to slap an 
ARIN-approved sticker on the transaction has cost ARIN trust. Surely you see 
that if Microsoft didn't luckily have an ARIN-assessed need which was in 
line with the prior agreement negotiated with Nortel, that ARIN would have 
been faced with a legal transfer which could not be accurately reflected in 
Whois under current policy. Other transactions like this have occurred and 
will likely increase in frequency as we move through total exhaust of the 
free pools.

Should reliance on Whois accuracy suffer as a result, the door is open to 
private registries whom network operators can go to to find more accurate 
information about routing authority.


>> I think I could characterize your opposition better by saying that you 
>> believe the danger of hoarding and speculation outweigh the risk to whois 
>> accuracy.

>I think that the risk to whois accuracy is relatively low and is a spectre 
>or boogeyman
>argument used by those with more libertarian economic views than my own.

>OTOH, I think that the risks to the community that come with an abandonment 
>of
>needs-basis and other secondary aspects of address resource management that
>spring from that is an extreme risk to the community and transitions the 
>fundamental
>nature of the internet from the greatest tool ever developed for the 
>democratization
>of communication to yet another tool for media exploitation.
> Owen

What is the "extreme risk" you mention, if not the impact you feel would 
come from hoarders and speculators?
Is not my proposal in favor of more freedom for the members of the 
community?

What's  more, my proposal will provide an incentive to bring legacy 
addresses  under RSA through increasing the rights of RSA holders to hold 
and transfer addresses.
I think the value of bringing address space  under an agreement where no 
agreement existed before should be considered as another positive effect of 
my proposal.

To me, the objections are: Fears of a free market >> Risk to whois + getting 
more legacy space under RSA.
This decision comes down to how much do you fear a free market?


Regards,
Mike