[arin-ppml] FW: In favor of 2012-01

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Mon Apr 9 15:19:28 EDT 2012


AFAIK none of the RIRS policy lists are moderated, perhaps you should check
to see if you are actually subscribed to the list with the email address
you used.

You can check your subscription here:

On Monday, April 9, 2012, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> The following message was sent to RIPE's address policy list last week in
> connection with the discussion of its inter-regional transfer policy
> proposal, but apparently has been censored. I copy it here because the
> discussion is relevant to all regions. Anyone who knows who "moderates"
> RIPE's list might want to bring this problem to their attention.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 4:12 PM
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net <javascript:;>
> Subject: In favor of 2012-01
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset
> of the
> > seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any
> one has the
> > same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and
> equally.
> The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of
> us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know
> what the term "commons" means.
> For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for
> use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive
> occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it?

There are lots of folks who number their internal networks using addresses
that haven't been allocated or assigned to them, and, while not BCP, it
seems to work for them.


How is applying policy uniformly arbitrary?

> IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific
> users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a
> commons - end of story, full stop, that's it.
> Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can in fact be
> governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency
> establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a pool)
> or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making
> trades among themselves). All that matters is which method is more
> efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. Leave your
> religious beliefs in your prayer chapels.
> > the problem is not that space is transfered. the problem is that the
> seller
> > assumes that he has the (absolute) power over it, that it is his own,
> even if
> > the requirements that lead to the allocation or assignment to him isn't
> valid
> > anymore.
> If you think that is wrong, apparently you haven't noticed the last 10
> years of IP address allocation.
> RIPE and the other RIRs lack the resources to constantly monitor the
> efficiency and need of specific holders of address blocks _after_ they are
> allocated and assigned, and they also lack the authority to reclaim
> resources that they deem are underutilized. In the RIR's common pool
> governance, resources go out but they rarely, practically never, come back.

You might be surprised at how often blocks are returned.  ARIN staff can
probably give us the raw numbers of returns over the last decade if we ask


>  (It's a reverse roach motel. They check out, but they never check back
> in.) Apparently, everyone who holds a block already thinks that it's an
> asset. What a surprise! Not. It is a valuable asset, given that it must be
> exclusively held and you can't do Internet business without it in
> appropriate quantities. I can't think of a better definition of an asset
> than something that is scarce, exclusively held, and essential to
> operations.
> Therefore, post-IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance breaks down
> completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4
> resources is to allow market-based transfers. These transfers should be
> made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for
> holding periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as
> they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and
> pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of
> religious faith in these circles, but the idea that RIR staff can
> accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and
> technical development, Is wrong.

> Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think
> they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests.
> Let the price system sort out who really needs what.

Hmmm, isn't this a recipe to invite hoarding and speculation?



> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <javascript:;>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any issues.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120409/a3dc24e4/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list