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

[George Herbert]

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Tom Vest <tvest at eyeconomics.com> wrote:
>
> On May 19, 2011, at 10:07 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> 2) Even if that's true, adding buyers without need will increase demand and thus increase revenue for the sellers
>>>>
>>>
>>> You say that as if it is a good thing. In fact, that is the very crux of the problem with this policy. It will
>>> drive up the price of addresses for no purpose of benefit to the community.
>>
>> It is of net benefit to the community if it helps encourage IPv6 transitions.
>
> I would be inclined to embrace that as a general conditional statement.
> However the conditional part means that it does not apply to this particular proposal.
> And merging your two observations together makes it clear why this is so...
>
>> Smooth ramp functions are less catastrophic to community members, and
>> the community as a whole, than abrupt brick walls.
>
> It is NOT of net benefit to the community to encourage a minority of members to build ramps for their own smooth (adaptation?) if/when those ramps simultaneously represent brick walls impeding the adaptation all community members -- including (eventually) the ramp builders themselves.


I agree that a number of people in the community view speculation as
such a brick wall; I disagree with the ASSERTION that it is the true
situation.

It is arguable that the effect on the community will be that, and I
don't disagree with making the argument.  As always, I am highly
dissapointed at the politicized discussion on this point, which is
significantly lacking in depth and breadth on the question.

This is not a political question.  This is a question that frankly
someone with Hal Varian's email address (or another economist who's
net-savvy) should be dragging him into, if necessary kicking and
screaming, along with some thoughtful and articulate IP space user
community representatives who haven't prejudged the situation (in
either direction).

I am entirely happy if the end result of an actual, appropriate,
educated and informed discussion on these points indicates that we not
speculate (in the community's interest).  We're not there.

I also don't recommend shocking status quo changes while we figure it
out, but I would point out that creeping "deployed code-ism" will beat
political internet policymaking authority action nearly 100% of the
time.  Creeping speculation is happening, and if the community remains
wilfully unwilling to talk seriously about it (and bring in economists
who understand scarcity and the net) we're going to get whatever
results we negligently let happen.

This is not community leadership on display...


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com