[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

[Steven Ryerse]

Very pointed and very true!  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:12 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Steven Ryerse; Ted Mittelstaedt; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Socialism dies from economic failure or revolution.  

Needs tests are dead. But beware the #IANA Transition. 

Best,

-M<



> On Dec 19, 2014, at 20:05, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> How do we change to the Capitalistic model from what we got now?
>> 
>> Steven L Ryerse
> 
> 
> Thanks for the interesting discussion.
> Might I say in answer to your question above that a step towards that change would be 2014-14?
> Small operators could purchase a /24 without a needs test, yet the needs test remains in place for large transfers which some feel could imperil the market.
> 
> And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and Owen relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all resource holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the most effective ongoing needs-test of all.  By their nature, corporations who recognize unused but valuable and perishable assets in their possession will seek to monetize them. The gimlet eye of the corporate accountant works unceasingly to bring IPv4 addresses into efficient use through the transfer market in a way that vague ARIN threats never could. We should work to make that market more predictable and robust in order to best harness those efficiencies.
> 
> 
> Long version of above, feel free to ignore:
> 
> 2014-14 would remove much of the uncertainty in the market, since it would cover most transactions and allow the buyer and seller to particpate without the uncertainty introduced by third-party veto in the form of a failed needs-test. IPv4 transactions are still a novel idea outside a small group of people. Many international transactions have built-in levels of FUD which are high even before considering the novelty of the core transaction and the natural reluctance to wire an up-front international payment for an asset so virtual in nature.
> 
> Likewise for sellers, who are asked to initiate the transfer request with an entity (ARIN) which may or may not consummate the transaction, at its sole discretion. There is policy and procedure for the transfer of IPv4 resources when the request follows policy, but what procedure and policy is available to the seller if the transfer succeeds, but some contractual breach occurs between buyer and seller whose penalty is the reversion of rights to the Seller? Can the Seller sell his address rights under Net 30 terms, confident that ARIN (and potentially and coordinatedly APNIC) would revert Whois records to their original state if the breach could be demonstrated? Would that breach have to be demonstrated to a judge first, would ARIN respond only to a judge's order? Would ARIN respond to an Asian judge's order, or vice versa? FUD.
> 
> Can an IPv4 asset possibly function as security if it can not be reliably and predictably transferred? I know a small business that wanted to borrow some money and secure it with their IPv4 stock, and use the funds to grow their business (thus utilizing their IPv4 stock). But who would make the loan if they could never collect on the secured asset?
> 
> As a broker it would make transactions simpler and smoother for buyers if I could purchase a /16,  have it as inventory, and then sell in, say, /24s. Today, when buyers want a very small block it is hard for them to find a broker interested, because the size makes it not worth the broker's time. And when a seller comes to broker and wants to sell a /24, the same logic applies. Few sellers with /16s are willing to endure 256 transactions in order to monetize their block. Net result is wasted space and unmet need. But if the broker had /16 in inventory and could eliminate all costs involved with a Seller's participation, selling individual /24s might be profitable,  allowing the need of the smallest operator to be met. With 2014-14 it could at least be attempted.
> 
> If all involved knew that the RIRs would be passive registrars of the transfers, FUD would be reduced and the market made more vital in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.