[arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIRTransfers - Last Call

[Mike Burns]

Hi John,

Once the free pool depletes, the only available addresses will be in the 
transfer market.
At that point the poor organizations will be shut out, regardless of their 
need.
Speculators could be limited by the /12 maximum I mentioned, and more 
importantly by the uncertain IPv6 transition timeframe.

The market definition of need that you assert ("something someone is willing 
to spend money on") will serve the same stewardship requirements as does a 
needs justification for free pool allocations, to wit efficient usage.

I will say no more about the issue in this thread, I think it too 
diversionary and the passage of this policy too important to be sidetracked.

I understand ARIN will maintain a list of RIRs with "compatible" policies.
It will be a short list, and if policy changes substantially at another RIR 
which puts ARIN  members at a relative disadvantage, we can discuss the 
issue further and tweak policy then if necessary.

I support passage of 2011-1.

Regards,

MIke





-----Original Message----- 
From: John Santos
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 3:04 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: CJ Aronson ; William Herrin ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN 
Inter-RIRTransfers - Last Call


Mike Burns wrote:

IMO, yes, there should be a stringent justification for need for free pool
addresses, and no need justification for transfers, as long as we prevent
gaming the system through simple expedients like preventing transfers of
addresses from those who have tapped the free pool less than a year ago, and
limiting needs-free transfers to less than a /12 per year.

Itbs the insistence on maintaining control of addresses already allocated
from the free pool which is the cause of all this consternation over the
inter-regional transfers.

Once addresses have a monetary value, there is no need for stewards to
maintain
a needs test, since the market will naturally provide efficient use of
transferred addresses.

Once again, Prop-151 would moot this discussion.

Regards,

Mike Burns

-----------------------

I think the essential difference is that the market defines "need" as
"something someone is willing to spend money on", while ARIN defines "need"
in terms of technical requirements.  Conflating the two definitions of
need and treating them as equivalent doesn't help matters at all.

In market terms, "need" includes "I need to buy a yacht, and successfully
speculating in IPv4 addresses will allow me to do that."

This is definitely not a justification that would work to prove "need"
to ARIN for a free pool allocation.

Also, a market (even a restricted market) defines "relative need" as
"who is willing to pay the most for a limited resource."  This could
potentially shut out "poor" organizations that have limited monetary
resources, such as educational institutions, non-profits, and third-world
countries.

Since the Internet depends to some extent on such organizations for
new development (such as open source software, game-changing experiments,
and so on), we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to limit this.)
On the other hand, 1) I hope at this point most such developments are
using or trending to IPv6, and so don't care much about IPv4 policy,
and 2) I'm pretty sure that the cost of IP transport is much greater
than the cost of IP address space, so even if the cost goes way up in
a market, this would be a minor effect.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539