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

[Mike Burns]

Hi McTim,

  >The goals, IIRC, are uniqueness, registration and conservation.

Uniqueness and registration are served by my proposal.
Conservation of the free pool is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and I 
want to continue needs-based allocations from the free pool.

>It just makes no sense to me to abandon a needs basis just because we
>are getting closer to the bottom of the pool.  I think a needs basis
>may be even more important as the crunch comes.

I have given reasons why I believe, along with the APNIC community, that 
maintaining needs requirements for transfers will cause transactions to 
occur and not be registered. When the crunch comes, ARIN won't be allocating 
anything. The only ones allocating IPv4 resource then are those whose price 
is met. The need the seller will be concerned with is the need to get money 
for addresses. The need the buyer will be concerned with is utilizing them 
profitably. Neither buyer nor seller will be concerned with ARIN's 
determination of need. If ARIN won't register the transaction due to this 
requirement, whois suffers.

>BTW, would you be in favor of an IPv4 futures market, where companies
>don't actually buy and sell address blocks, they just buy and sell
>contracts to buy/sell v4 blocks at some future date?

I would be in favor of the freedom to create such a market if voluntary 
particpants want to engage in it.

>I think Owen is spot on that "the risk to whois accuracy is relatively
>low and is a spectre" (although I would call it a red-herring).

I have personally seen these kinds of transactions, and even Owen concedes 
they will likely happen with more frequency as we move past free pool 
exhaust.

>I also think your characterisation of ARIN actions as "shabby" is 
>unwarranted.

Do you honestly believe that the ARIN needs analysis of the MS/Nortel deal 
was fair and accurate?
If so, I can see why you would feel shabby is an unwarranted word.

>In short, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
>I doubt either one of us will be able to change the others fundamental 
>perspective.

Agreed. Or should I say disagreed?
>From the lack of support for my proposal, I would think that I was unable to 
change most people's perspective.

Cheers to you, too McTim!

Mike