[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
> no sir, it is not directly parallel. community assigned holdership takes
> the place of securities law in your example. therefore the ability and
> methods of resource trading are a matter to be determined by the same
> community who would decide whether to recognize those trades.

[Milton L Mueller] you are again missing the point, or we are talking past each other. 
The issue is not what law applies. The issue is whether multiple entities (brokers and registries) can coordinate resources that are traded. You argued in your ACM piece that "physics" prevented it. The CUSIP example proves you wrong. 

> >> i think you "simply" need to stop thinking about ip addresses as
> >> assets having titles which can be traded, and focus your energies on
> >> studying
> > [Milton L Mueller] but they _can_ be traded, and _are_ being traded.
> And RSAs and Whois registrations are nothing if not "titles." Is this
> dialogue moving backwards to 2005?
> 
> i've been told by several operators that they are aware of or engaging
> in underground optioning of rights, in order to lay in a long term
> supply of growth capacity for their ipv4 networks. each of them plans to
> execute NRPM 8.3 trades when they can justify each tranche they have
> options on. none of them has told me that they need a new registry
> without ARIN's "needs basis" in order to run their businesses. if so,

[Milton L Mueller] That's interesting, and that's fine by me and apparently by you. If indeed you are speaking for every single legacy holder, which I doubt, there will be no need to quarrel about this issue, because there will be no need for ARIN to try to force them to trade via its own process by threatening to de-list the transferred blocks. If you are not right....?

> if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which
> reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use
> address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all
> ears, please regale me.

[Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that. If you are confident that no legacy holders will ever try to engage in trades outside of ARIN, then you really shouldn't care about this definition, should you? 
 
> at this moment the only
> people i know of who want what dr. mueller is calling "propertization"
> are speculators, not operators.

[Milton L Mueller] I am quite confident that this is incorrect. last time I looked the proponent of this prop-172 was an operator (Marty) as well as some of its supporters.