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

[Chris Engel]

> On May 12, 2011, at 12:04 PM, John Curran wrote:
> 
> > On May 12, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> >
> >> I'd argue the reverse, actually. If there is a needs basis then the top N ISPs
> have an advantage in that they are already experts at manipulating the
> needs basis. (And it really is manipulation, because any of them could actually
> get by with much much less than they already have if the "need" took into
> account things like forcing customers to use NAT)
> >>
> >> One could argue, for instance, that *with* a needs basis Comcast might
> end up holding nearly all the space... but without a needs basis it might be an
> investment banking firm instead, who'd then lease the space out to move
> providers than just Comcast.
> >
> > Matthew -
> >
> >   If (for argument) we accept the premise that the "invisible hand" of a
> well-
> >   functioning market will result in more efficient resource utilization, then
> >   would it also be the case that ARIN should not issue additional IP address
> >   space from the available pool based on need, but instead employ a
> market
> >   function to improve the overall efficiency of resource utilization?
> 
> That probably should have started years ago. We might not be at runout
> today if the price had been set properly... and ARIN would have lots more
> money for lawyers.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

That's an interesting dynamic. In scarcity market, where an IP Address might have significant financial value, what's to prevent dishonest actors from simply "manufacturing" need in order to gain said resources?

Hypothetically, if and IP Address costs $.25 each.....what would stop an actor from creating an "ip enabled virtual pet rock"  project where each "virtual pet rock" cost $.05 each and manufacturing a plausible rationale for why each such "virtual pet rock" required a routable public IP...and then grabbing up as much space as they could afford?

It strikes me that all a "needs" based regulatory system would accomplish under such conditions would be to force the regulatory agency (ARIN) into some very problematic and somewhat arbitrary decision making on what projects constituted "legitimate need" and which didn't.....and would essentially weight the system in favor of those who were more experienced at "gaming" the system.

A scarcity market would definitely seem to create a different dynamic then what would exist were the resource in plentiful supply.


Christopher Engel
(representing only my own personal views)