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

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Tue Feb 25 14:51:31 EST 2014

I would point out that what he really did was size the block (A, B, or C) according to the organization's size and not their need.  When I applied for one Class C for my company he/Network Solutions  didn't ask me whether I needed it or not.  I was just asked who would be using it.  

Steven Ryerse
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Matthew Kaufman; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language

I will point out that Jon Postel required organizations to show need for the resources before he gave them out and that the concept of selling address space was not really considered since addresses were plentiful and available for free. The implicit expectation (and indeed, the normal
behavior) of the time was that resources no longer needed were returned to the free pool.


On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> I would just point out that john postal gave out resources freely and let the market take the Internet where it wanted and a great thing happened. I think we should be following his model and I will keep advocating for it. 
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 12:23 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 8:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2014 2:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> 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. 
>>> I don't get it. You want everyone to switch to IPv6 as soon as possible, and yet you don't want the IPv4 market to experience speculation that is detrimental to continued use of IPv4?!?
>> This is because you are ignoring a certain reality of my situation.
>> Personally, I want everyone to switch. I believe that is best for the internet and best for everyone involved. I want to provide as many incentives and motivations to accomplish that.
>> However, as an AC member, my responsibility is to act as a good steward of the address space on behalf of the community. Speculation, while it may indirectly serve my personal goal above, will not directly serve the community and is definitely not good stewardship of the address space.
>>>> I don’t see a problem with that. I have no desire to encourage transfers as a primary choice. I think it is, in fact, just bad policy to do so. Transfers should, IMHO, be viewed as a last resort when free pool options have been exhausted.
>>> I believe they'd be the "last" "first" and "only" resort, wouldn't they? I mean, if you *need* IPv4, and there's no free pool, what else can you do?
>> Currently, there is still a free pool. There are those that are advocating distorting policy to make transfers more attractive than draining obtaining addresses from the free pool in hopes of keeping the free pool around for an artificially long time. It is my opinion that such policies are harmful both in terms of creating an artificial extension of the lifetime of the free pool and in terms of distorting the free market aspects of managing transfer policy.
>> Owen
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list