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

[Matthew Petach]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Tom Vest <tvest at eyeconomics.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the responses Matt -- follow-ups inline...
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But, notwithstanding rhetorical force of habit, is anyone actually crying about "allowing anyone to buy and sell IP blocks" i.e., as opposed to "allowing non-operators (or those who can't demonstrate the equivalent of an operator's "need") to buy IP blocks?" You're still trying to conflate the prerogatives of an(y) aspiring IPv4 seller with those of a(ny) potential IPv4 buyer -- but you really can't claim that the two are the same, or that the differences don't matter without explaining why. Membership in the class of "anyone that can sell IPv4" is bounded by the material fact that in order to sell IPv4 one must actually have some to sell -- and throughout all time to the present moment, 100% of the members of that class have already satisfied, at minimum, whatever definition of "operator" was officially recognized  at the time when they received their address resources (and in most cases, additional/more demanding eligibility requirements that came thereafter). By contrast, the class of "anyone that can buy IPv4" has no equivalent limiting factor.
>>
>> I suppose what I'm stumbling over is that today, we
>> have large blocks of v4 address space that today
>> are held be registrants who are not routing them
>> as part of the global IPv4 routing table.  You seem
>> to feel that they somehow qualified as "operators"
>> in a way that has significance, in spite of them not
>> routing their address space in a reachable fashion,
>> whereas "speculators" would somehow be categorized
>> as "non-operators".
>>
>
> Even under today's policies, there are legitimate purposes for obtaining a registration that do not involve a route appearing in the global table or any routing table you are likely to be able to see.
>
> Just because their network isn't visible to you does not mean that it is not operating and/or is not connected to a network that is connected to the internet.
>

OK.  Trimming the rest down, because I think those
two lines really are the crux of a challenge point for
me, and the rest of Owen's reply reiterated that much
of my repeated concern hinges upon that point.

It seems that participation in the global
routing table is not a requirement condition for
being an operator, and that indeed there is no
externally visible condition or attribute that can
be seen to indicate whether an entity is an
operator or not.

Is the collected judgment of the ARIN staff the
only determining differentiator between speculators
and legitimate non-connected-to-the-internet
operators?  And if so, do we trust that judgment
sufficiently to have it be the sole arbiter of the
market?

If we do, then I'd think about removing my support
for proposal 165, and instead support a proposal
for an open, unfettered market for exchange of IPv4
address resources *between operators*, with the
results of transfers to be registered by ARIN.

The key distinction being that ARIN would not
limit the market based on *their* opinion of your
need, but simply on whether or not you qualified
as a network operator, as apparently they are
the only ones in a position to make that
determination.

I think that would find the best balance between
allowing the market to thrive, while at the same
time removing the horrible specter of "speculation"
that seems to be the one reason most often
cited for *not* allowing the market to develop
naturally.

Thanks!

Matt
seeking to gain deeper insights through continued dialogue