[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
mike at iptrading.com
Fri Dec 19 20:05:04 EST 2014
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
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
More information about the ARIN-PPML