[arin-ppml] Transactional transparency
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Sun Jul 1 18:43:08 EDT 2012
Let me again express my strong support for Jeff's suggestions regarding transparency and data about transfers.
Responding to Tom's assertion that such information would be "unacceptable to most potential market participants," that assertion clashes with standard operating procedure in real estate. You can all find out what I paid for my house, the date(s) it was sold, the identity of the transacting parties, and a lot of other information. Why should IP address holdings be any different? Stock market transactions are also made transparent, especially when "insiders" are involved.
This kind of information is known to facilitate, not disrupt or prevent, market transactions. Its availability makes the market more efficient and serves consumer protection purposes as well. Why not a Zillow for IP addresses? http://www.zillow.com/
This ought to be a topic on which all factions can easily agree. It's just common sense.
Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
> -----Original Message-----
> > 1. Date of Request for 8.3 Specified Transfer 2. Status of
> > Transferring Block (Legacy, LRSA, RSA) 3. Size of Block (/16, /17,
> > etc.) 4. Source SIC Code 5. Recipient NRPM Definition: ISP or End
> > User 6. Recipient Customer Status with ARIN: Customer or Non-Customer
> > 7. If ARIN Customer, date and size of last allocation from the free
> > pool 8. Current percent utilization of existing blocks 9. Number of
> > Justification re-submissions for transfer 10. Approval or Rejection
> > decision 11. Approval or Rejection rationale (codes 1-?) 11. Date of
> > Approval or Rejection 12. Facilitator Involvement (yes/no) 13. Price
> > paid (US$)
> I agree that more information is almost always better than less -- but I
> suspect that you've already overshot the level of information that would
> be deemed acceptable to most potential market participants by a very
> wide margin. Moreover, even this is not enough. For example, why exclude
> the identity of the aspiring buyer and the aspiring seller? With the
> possible exception of smallish entities that are both privately held AND
> have zero customers (i.e., that have no PA allocations and at most a
> very small number of ASNs), every institution that has ever received
> resources from ARIN or one of the other RIRs has critically important
> "external" stakeholders -- including either or both current and
> potential future stock buyers/holders/shorters, and (imo, more important
> still), a potentially large number of downstream network service
> "customers" -- i.e., entities whose own IPv4 addressing needs often
> provided much of the original "justification" that enabled the aspiring
> IPv4 buyer /seller to obtain whatever resources are already in their
> possession. Surely the network customers whose future service
> expectations, and the investors whose future earnings expectations may
> be substantially impacted by a network service provider's evolving IP
> addressing strategy also have a right to know? Promoting a larger/more
> active IPv4 market while simultaneously shielding the identities of
> aspiring IPv4 market participants would dramatically reduce whatever
> level of market "certainty" that those important stakeholders currently
> enjoy -- how can that be justified?
> Also, assuming that "facilitators" are free to differentiate themselves
> by adopting different commercial strategies that could in turn
> materially affect the outcome and details of the transactions that they
> broker in different ways, why should their identities be exempted from
> public disclosure?
> > I'm surely missing a half dozen other data elements that are captured
> > during an 8.3 but my point is, there is considerable data...will it
> > support the notion that 24 months is the correct window? Very loosely
> > at best, but it would assist all interested parties in better
> > understanding the 8.3 transfer market. Publishing price however is
> > going to be an entirely separate debate isn't it? I quietly muse at
> > all that would suggest 60 months will permit speculation or hoarding.
> > Really? What are you speculating on in the absence of known prices
> > and continuous updates? If however, prices are published, now you
> > have the basis to speculate as is the case in every open market system
> > (real estate, stock market, etc.).
> > As for other well-established markets, I have thoughts but would
> > suggest there are individuals who participate on the PPML better
> > qualified to suggest objective models for assessment purposes.
> In that case I guess we'll have to wait for someone who is both (a)
> knowledgeable of a potentially illuminating present-day exemplar market
> and (b) actually believes that it would be beneficial for IPv4 to be
> traded more like a "normal" commodity to speak up.
> For my own part, I am quite familiar with some other markets that are,
> IMO, quite relevant and illuminating to the problems under discussion,
> but at present those markets provide only a wealth of examples of what
> not to do (i.e., if we value stable markets, a stable, self-governing
> industry, continued/future growth and prosperity, etc.), and what to
> expect if we proceed anyway.
> > Jeff Mehlenbacher
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based
> > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers
> > From: Tom Vest <tvest at eyeconomics.com>
> > Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 11:59 am
> > To: <jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com>
> > <jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com>
> > Cc: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com, arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Hi Jeff,
> > Out of curiosity, could you suggest ( at min.) one set of data that
> > would be sufficient, in your view, to determine the appropriateness of
> > a(ny) IP number resource transfer market, under current or any other
> > imaginable policy criteria? How would you define "appropriateness" and
> > what sort of data would you need to make such a judgment?
> > If this question seems too abstract, perhaps you could point us to
> > some other, well-established market that demonstrably satisfies its
> > own "appropriateness" criteria based on "objective" data that is, if
> > not publicly available, at least available to some disinterested
> > "appropriateness evaluators"?
> > Thanks,
> > Tom Vest
> > On Jun 28, 2012, at 6:25 AM, <jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com>
> > <jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com> wrote:
> >> <snip> I have a real concern that the body of data available for
> >> assessment is neither comprehensive nor focused on dictating success
> >> or failure of the current 24 month justification period. I would be
> >> interested in understanding what data will be monitored to determine
> >> the appropriateness of current policy for 8.3s.
> >> Thanks!
> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher
> >> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:11:24 +0000
> >> From: "Alexander, Daniel" <Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com>
> >> To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based
> >> Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <B64177493F39BA4A81233AA84B50049E5A2BA30E at PACDCEXMB12.cable.comcast.c
> >> om>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> >> Jeff,
> >> One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3
> >> transfers claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to
> >> use. By stretching the period to five years, we start trading one
> >> underutilized resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to
> >> the claimed benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who
> >> objected to these transactions.
> >> No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand
> >> the timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before
> >> having any data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes
> >> that have been made. While I don't claim to know what the magic
> >> number should be, I think this change would be irresponsible at this
> >> time, based only on the speculations made on this mailing list.
> >> I'm opposed to this proposal.
> >> Dan Alexander
> >> Speaking as myself
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> >> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML