[arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 24, 2014, at 5:13 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2014, at 5:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:32 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I've been thinking about this maybe the restrictions for anti-flipping don't belong in section 8 at all.  Maybe they belong in section 4 as they are intended to protect the ARIN IPv4 free pool.
>> 
>> I disagree. I don’t want to see flipping become a tool for speculation in the market post-exhaustion, any more than I want to see it become a tool for draining the free pool. In fact, I think that the former might be significantly more harmful than the latter at this point.
> 
> Owen - 
> 
>  Could you elaborate your thoughts regarding the harm that might occur?
> 
>  I believe that folks understand risks associated with sudden/unexpected IPv4 free
>  pool depletion, but you are suggesting that liquidity itself in the IPv4 transfer 
>  market is harmful.  As that is neither obvious nor aligned with most market theory, 
>  it would be best for you to elaborate your thoughts some on that aspect.

I’m not suggesting that liquidity is harmful, but I am suggesting that creating an environment that is friendly to market manipulators and speculators would be harmful.

I realize that my opinions are definitely not aligned with most market theories, especially the more lessez faire ones, but I am not one of the free-market zealots that believes all regulation is harmful and all thins should be decided by dollars.

Look at the effect house flipping had on the California real estate market. This has been harmful in a number of ways and I see no reason to believe that similar behavior, if allowed, in the IP address realm would not be even more harmful.

Owen