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

jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com
Fri Feb 17 15:04:46 EST 2012

Owen, yes, there is much community concern over speculation, hording,
greed, cornering the market.  Needs-based justification on Specified
Transfers is one way to discourage (but not eliminate) these acts.  Our
Proposed Policy seeks only to encourage a vibrant, legitimate open
market between those with unused IPv4 blocks and those with stated need.
 Is it in the best interest of the community to maintain needs-based
justification policy that may discourage legitimate participation
through Specified Transfers in an attempt to corral the fringe element
that would seek to speculate, horde and profit from IPv4 transfers? 

Jeff Mehlenbacher

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Date: Fri, February 17, 2012 2:19 pm
To: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
Cc: "<jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com>"
<jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com>, arin-ppml at arin.net

On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

If this policy is adopted, it would enable speculative brokers who
wanted to
to maintain inventory without showing need for the addresses. It would
potentially turn IP addresses into a commodities futures market which I
not believe would serve the community well.

You say that no purpose is served when a transfer is rejected between a
company with an unused allocation and a company in need.  Current policy
does not do that. It does limit the size of the transfer to the
need, but, it does not reject the transfer.

However, no purpose is served when addresses are allowed to be purchased
organizations without need and great harm could come from allowing such
transactions if they start occurring on large scale in order to engage
speculation or worse, anti-competitive practices.



As resident devils advocate, I would be remiss not to point out that
anyone who stocks IP space they can't sell would soon find themselves
out of business thus discouraging others from substantially engaging
in the same practice, thus the "invisible hand" fixes the market.

True, but, it would not be unusual to stock addresses at $10 until the
market had high demand and low supply, then try to sell them for $50.

The community does not benefit from that $40 spread. The community is
harmed by that $40 spread. Only the speculator benefits from that

The invisible hand is slow to react and easily manipulated by those with
resources to do so.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list