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

[Paul Vixie]

> From: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 07:49:22 -0400
> 
> I understand you don't like the private DNS structure, but how does
> that relate to my proposal?

obliquely.  i'm asking that you not try to justify a private numbering
resources market using the private dns market as a "success" example.

> My statement that I think the private DNS is working was not related
> to my proposal, it was just a personal impression from my own personal
> experience in the DNS market, which includes transactions stretching
> from 1995 until today, and includes running production DNS servers
> throughout those years.

i'm certain that many personal experiences match yours.  however, these
positive personal experiences have come at the community's expense.  i
have heard it called "the chemical polluter business model" where as
long as you're not downstream you're probably doing well or at least OK.

> I have never made a proposal related to private registries, I am not
> interested in talking about private registries in the context of this
> thread.

ah, ok, then i misunderstood the original reference to which i replied.

> Although I supported the idea of a decision on allowing private IP
> registries for the purposes of creating a freer trade in IP addresses,
> I decided that the same purpose could be served by modifying ARIN
> policy to allow needs-free transfers.

that's an entirely different kettle of trouble.  non-needs-based means
that commercial investment techniques such as speculation, hoarding,
price manipulation, and everything else that Enron had going during the
california energy market deregulation crisis of the previous decade are
on the table.  i'd much prefer to avoid that kind of crisis for Internet
numbering resources.  in fact even a steady state non-crisis in which
the prices operators pay for resources are in any way controlled by
profit-seeking non-operators would be an unfavourable change.

> The talk about DNS registries is a side matter, unless you can relate
> them to my proposal.  I never held the DNS model as a "best or most
> shining example of what to hope for from a private numbering resource
> market".  I'm not even proposing a private numbering resource market.

noted.  however, we may still be in disagreement, though on a new basis.