[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflictofinterest/IPaddresspolicy pitched directly to ICANN

Ray Hunter v6ops at globis.net
Mon May 2 16:36:32 EDT 2011


I am merely pointing out that a market based approach is highly unlikely 
to succeed in a consensus-based Internet, and that it brings a number of 
serious risks. I think I have established that quite clearly.

Many in the ARIN community think that ARIN have the authority to reclaim 
allocations if they are no longer needed.

The debate over address "ownership" and "value" will probably continue. 
Possibly in the courts.

Jeffery Lyon hits the nail on the head:

 > Why would ARIN want to allow sales of space outside the region?
 > -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team

Because otherwise the WTO might get involved, as it could be construed 
as an unfair restriction on trade that China and India have fewer IPv4 
addresses than people, whereas the US has a 5:1 ratio, and now China and 
India are being asked to pay for more IPv4 addresses or can't get hold 
of them at all?

PS Do you think the Ben Bernanke idea might have legs?

regards,
RayH

Mike Burns wrote:
> Now you would ask ARIN not only whether the addresses are justified in 
> their opinion, but also to judge the financial motivations of the 
> participants?
> Under what policy would ARIN be able to have legacy addresses returned 
> to the free pool as you describe?
> In fact, the MS/Nortel deal is not the only transaction that has 
> occurred, and the existence of tradeipv4.com and other sites is 
> testimony to the likelihood it will happen again, policy or no policy.
> Who knows which 80 companies were contacted? Wouldn't it be better if 
> the whole thing was conducted in the open, so that ChinaTelecom could 
> bid as well?
> Why not an open and transparent marketplace free from artifical and 
> easily-scammable justification regimes?
> Regards,
> MIke
>
>     In fact one could very succinctly argue that precisely this
>     example could/should trigger the ARIN / ICANN community to now
>     officially adopt a tighter /explicit policy like example #7 I
>     mentioned.
>
>     7) Ask ARIN to prevent any and all transfers that are motivated
>     purely by financial gain, and instead insist that such
>     participants return IPv4 allocations to the unallocated pool "for
>     the benefit of the Internet Community" once the existing
>     allocation is no longer needed.
>
>     Ray
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110502/e2c23e70/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list