[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 20, 2014, at 10:45 , Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> It's utterly simple to create artificial entities, if necessary.
> 
> There are only about 48,000 /16s en toto in all of the IPv4 unicast space. In reality, when you consider the potential transfer market, it's more likely on the order of 4,000.
> 
> Want to bet that there are not organizations out there that would be able to create enough entities to absorbe 4,000 /16s pretty quickly for the sake of attempting to flip them at a speculative profit?
> 
> I think it's a bad bet.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> That old chestnut again. So little faith in ARIN staff members to detect what would have to be monumental levels of fraud before any market manipulation could be achieved. ARIN legal staff has reviewed 2014-14, remember, and found your argument lacking.

No, legal stated that there were no issues of liability for ARIN with the policy. The potential for fraud was not stated one way or another by the legal team in the staff and legal review.

> First, where do you go to find 4,000 /16s? Not that I am accepting that number, I argue the potential transfer market as more like 12,000 /16 equivalents (before more widespread CGN could enlarge that number).

I figure there are about 12 /8s or so that are well known to be underutilized and that a proportional number of other blocks would account for another 4 or so /8s worth of space. Admittedly, like any quantity described at this point, it's mostly a SWAG, but I consider it a fairly educated SWAG. YMMV.

Where do you get 12,000?

> How do you negotiate quietly with the many, many sellers whom you would have to spend a long time finding?

Why would you have to negotiate quietly?

> Or would you put an ad in the NY Times and hope it escaped the notice of the ARIN community, even though I assume it would be community members engaging in at least one side of these transactions?

Why would an ad in the NY Times have to escape the notice of the ARIN community?

Advertise that your organization would like to buy a /n (whatever size gets passed with 2014-14 if it gets adopted).

Then, as the calls come in, change your org name after each successful call. Nobody looking at the ad knows you're shopping for more than one. People who compare notes think they're dealing with different organizations. I'm not sure how you expect ARIN to put it together as the transfer requests come in.

> Do you think ARIN staff, a group that has processed a few hundred transfers, would be able to even process those transactions in a timeframe and manner invisible to policymakers?

It doesn't have to be invisible, it just has to look like a lot of different unrelated transfers.

> And what is the entity willing to engage in arguable fraud, who also has the desire and finances to invest billions of dollars in an asset whose value will decline with every new incentive to transition to IPv6?

You don't have to corner the market to manipulate it. You just need to change its visible nature a little and then watch the lemmings do what you encouraged them to do. Especially in a small market.

> Or instead of one or two nefarious actors, you assume there would be many smaller fraudsters engaging in enough rampant speculation to impact the market.

I see no reason to believe that there would not be some combination of actors across the spectrum. Under the proposed policy, they wouldn't even necessarily be nefarious or operating fraudulent. A bit deceitful, perhaps, but through omission rather than falsification if they played it right.

> And how many flippers are active in a market with falling prices and an asset value of zero?

You continue to assume falling prices, but there's nothing to indicate any likelihood that will be the case for some time.

> And if they flip them to a person who needs them, and makes money in the process, what, exactly is the evil?

The evil is driving up the price for the person who had need and should have been able to obtain them at the lower cost. I have no interest in turning the IPv4 community resource pool into a source of monetization for parasites who offer no value to the community in the process.

> Where is the evidence of anyone, anywhere, buying Ipv4 addresses with an intent to profit through their resale?
> Unless you can provide some, why do we hold policy in thrall to the bogeyman?

Since you are the one arguing for a change in policy, I believe the burden of proof rests with you to prove that the policy will not damage the interests of the community rather than placing the burden on me to prove that it will.

> I guess that's a long way of saying I would absolutely take your bet.

Unfortunately, since this is a case where what would be bet is the best interests of the community, the stakes aren't mine to wager, nor are they yours.

Owen