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

[Mike Burns]

Hi Jon,

Here are some examples of an entity that may want to purchase addresses but not demonstrate need:

1. A company with a 5 year planning horizon
2. A company that wants to provide temporary allocations 
3. A company that wants to specialize in very rapid allocations, like same-day service.
4. A company that stocks addresses for sale in to those who would pay more for guaranteed availability
5. A company who is concerned about future supply.
6. A company that wishes to lease address space rather than sell it
7. A company who seeks to buy up small allocations to aggregate them in to larger, more valuable netblocks
8. A seller of vanity ip addresses like 100.100.100.100
9. A speculator willing to risk money to buy addresses as an investment for anticipated gains in address prices.
10. A company whose anticipated need does not begin for 12 months.

I'm sure there are many more that I cannot think of. I agree with you that most buyers will have need, and I agree with you that most buyers will see the value of maintaining a valid ARIN whois record pointing to their authority.

But the policy in APNIC was changed to remove needs requirements for transfers for the same reasons I am requesting its removal here.
My policy proposal also has the benefit of incentivizing legacy resources to come under RSA, and it serves to even the playing field between the disparate rights of legacy versus non-legacy holders.

And my underlying point is the obvious one, that the very act of paying for address space is a very good indication of need, or at least perceived need on the part of the buyer.

Regards,
Mike




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jonathan Fernatt 
  To: Mike Burns 
  Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate




    What is the great benefit that outweighs the danger to Whois of unbooked transfers and the benefits of incentivizing legacy resources to come under RSA?
    Who says my proposal would result in completely unregulated markets? Every transferee would sign an RSA and be subject to ARIN policy.
    And with my policy or without my policy, addresses are bound to flow to the highest bidder.
    If the policy proposal doesn't fly, it will be to the highest bidder who can show need.
    Do you think that we should take more steps to protect the little guy in this event?
    Maybe a price cap? An address czar?




  I keep seeing seeing this argument from you Mike. I honestly can't understand why you think the needs requirement is such an obstacle for a company with a legitimate need for addresses that they would have to avoid ARIN altogether. Following that same train of thought, wouldn't it be easier for a company who didn't care about the process or being honest to just falsify their needs justification?


  I deal with tiny tiny tiny companies who have had no problem whatsoever showing need for resources. ARIN staff and policy have always seemed very accommodating from my perspective. 


  Have you had a different experience?


  Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110511/6e6830f9/attachment.htm>