[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com]

No shortage of innovation in this suggestion but it runs contrary to
motivating companies to transfer unused resources to companies in need. 
It's entirely punitive and simply restrains trade...which is presumably
the intent.  I would add that you are creating enormous incentive for
companies to execute transfers outside of ARIN.  Our policy proposal for
60 months is intended to encourage companies to work within the policy
framework for 8.3 transfers. 

Jeff Mehlenbacher


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based
Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 2:19 am
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>,
jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com, arin-ppml at arin.net

On 6/27/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try to
> push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the wrong
> direction.

Perhaps ARIN should eliminate the number of months as a hard policy
value, and stipulate that the addresses will be ineligible for
further specified transfers for at least twice the number of months'
supply, the remaining restriction period is added to addresses
obtained through any further addresses received by
transfer/aggregation/renumbering request, and

 ARIN will charge an additional premium FEE for transfer of addresses,
for more than a 6 month's supply of addresses, based on the number
of months supply of addresses, a minimum transfer premium of $10 per
IP address contained in the block, and variable based on ARIN
staffs' opinion of a "market" value of the addresses, the premium
to be set at 1.5x the estimated present value of the number of
additional IP addresses allowed to be transferred
times the number of months in the future before the IP addresses
corresponding to that future month's supply are expected to be
required.

And no less than a 25% additional increase in transfer fee for each
additional "month's supply of addresses" to be added for each
month's supply of addresses after the 6th month.

Transfer premium proceeds to be used to offer an incentive for the
return of addresses to the free pool.

In other words... if you really need a 60-month supply of addresses;
it is feasible,
but will cost you, depending on the number of IP addresses that actually
is.

Theoretically, it wouldn't be responsible to go through with the
transfer then,
unless you really needed the IPs.

> Owen
--
-JH