[arin-ppml] Fwd: ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification

[Matthew Petach]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Tom Vest <tvest at eyeconomics.com> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> You seem to be arguing the following:
>
> 1. "IPv4 Speculation" is bad (or maybe good for the lucky speculators, but bad/unfair for everyone else).

I was trying not to assign it a category of "good' or "bad"--simply stating
it does exist today; and thus, one of the arguments *against* a free and
unfettered market is not relevant.  The cry of "but if we allow anyone to
buy and sell IP blocks, we'll be overrun with speculators" rings hollow
when the market is already supporting dozens of speculators who operate
outside the needs-based criteria.

> 2. Possession of IPv4 today == "IPv4 Speculation."

Not quite; I meant "posession of IPv4 today *above and beyond what the
ARIN needs-based justification would approve* == IPv4 speculation."

> 3. Therefore, anyone/everyone (today) should have an equal right to be an IPv4 speculator.

Given that there are many players already who hold IPv4 resources that wildly
flaunt any needs-based justification whatsoever, I propose that anyone and
everyone should likewise be able to participate in the market to that same
degree.  If we're going to turn a blind eye towards holders of large blocks
and not require any needs-based justification for them, then be fair and
do away with the needs-based justification for everyone.  Otherwise,
apply it equally across the board.

> Questions:
> Is there something uniquely unfair that is inherent specifically in an IPv4 holder's right to sell not just to sell IPv4, but to sell it without restriction based on current needs-based policies.

There's nothing unfair in the right; what is unfair is that the
rights are not being applied equally to everyone within the
ARIN purview.  I'm advocating that we either apply the rules
equally to *everyone*, or apply them to no-one.  The current
"have" and "have-not" scenario is a ludicrous parody of
medieval fiefdoms.

> In other words, is there something that makes that narrow privilege more important than any/every other right/privilege that an IPv4 holder might enjoy, e.g., in  world of IP addressing scarcity (e.g., max. freedom to expand, to add new customers, to add peers at will, reachability to/from all of the the rest of the Internet)?  Even if one thinks that that narrow selling-related privilege *is* more important and more unfair than all of the other advantages of having IPv4,  doesn't the privilege also confer to any/all subsequent IPv4 buyers? If it does confer, then (following the logic that people use to justify a transfer market in general), what makes the idea of having to buy that particular privilege *more* intolerable than the idea of having to buy any of the other privileges that every current IPv4 holder in the world currently enjoys simply by virtue of their possession of allocated/assigned IPv4?
>
> If you believe that RIR-era needs justification rules retroactively render legacy IPv4 assignments so unfair and illegitimate that an ex post facto equalization (to your benefit) is now justified, and the community actually ratifies that notion, I wonder how future community members will interpret that precedent a few years from now, when they start comparing what they're obliged to do/give up to get usable IP addresses to what was expected of *anyone* that was lucky enough to acquire IPv4 at any time in before IPv4 exhaustion...
>

It's refreshing to see people admitting that yes, the legacy
block holders do enjoy privilege and status far above everyone
else who operates under the RIR needs-based rules.  However,
I'm not advocating that we take up pitchforks and torches and
storm the castles of the wealthly landed gentry; instead, I'm
advocating removal of the unfair and unreasonable rules that
deny anyone else the ability to gain access to similar levels
of resources.

The old boy's club has their wealth and power and prestige
in the form of large, unjustified swaths of IPv4 space; let's
bring equality and fairness to the market, and allow
everyone the *opportunity* to participate in that mode.

Or are you arguing in favour of the status quo, that it's
fine for some players to hold onto large, unjustified blocks
of IPv4 space, simply due to their age, but everyone else
has to sit in the back of the bus?

Have we really come to the days of "separate but equal",
and segregation on the internet??  Is it time for the next
Rosa Parks to take a stand, and not meekly move to the
back of the bus, based solely on an arbitrary discriminant
like skin colour?  Why should the age of your IPv4 block
confer special rights to a select few that are denied to
everyone else?

Very simply, my stance is "equal rights for all."  If we're not
enforcing needs-based justification for everyone, then don't
enforce it on just a select minority.  That's not equality, that's
discrimination.

Help me end discrimination on the internet; vote to remove
discriminatory needs-based rules that are applied only to
the non-privileged minorities.  Vote YES on prop 165!

> Am I missing something?

I hope this has helped clarify the points you might have
missed in my earlier missive; and with that increased
clarity will come support for true equality in the ARIN
region, and an end to unfair, discriminatory practices.

> Thanks,
> TV

Thanks!

Matt