[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods

[Michael Sinatra]

On 1/13/12 1:06 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong<owen at delong.com>  wrote:
>>     1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification
>> periods
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars.
>
> The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress
> frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. With transfers,
> significant and growing sums of money change hands, a fact inherently
> suppresses frivolous use. The need to suppress transfer-based
> consumption with policy, if it exists at all, is consequently much
> less than with free pool consumption.
>
> Just as the regulations which apply to a strip mine are not
> appropriate when applied to a recycler, rules which are perfectly
> rational for free pool allocations can be onerous and excessive for
> transfers. "One size fits all" is entirely inappropriate here.

Hi Bill:

My hunch is that your implicit assumption is that the transfer market 
currently clears itself efficiently, or some close approximation 
thereof.  I disagree with that assumption, even if you don't hold it :). 
  I became especially aware of the problems arising from the uneven 
run-out and the issues surround ARIN's current "protection" of its free 
pool from the discussions in Philadelphia.  To be honest, there are a 
lot of issues that will be resolved once the RIRs' free pools run out 
and they transfer markets can operate with (relatively) low distortion. 
  I am not interested in speeding the run-out, but I am also not 
interested in the continued unnecessary protection of the free pool.  As 
Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 addresses should be used.  The fact that 
Geoff comes from the the APNIC region does not skew my view of his 
opinion, BTW.

Forcing ISPs to run up the price of IPv4 resources on the transfer 
market should not be a part of ARIN policy, but it unfortunately is at 
this point.  That hurts everyone.

If it's not obvious already, I support Owen's proposal, and thank him 
for submitting it.  (I was going to propose the same thing during the 
Philadelphia meeting, but I was busy and/or lazy.  Sorry about that.)

michael