[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 4, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Elvis Velea <elvis at velea.eu> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> On 05/06/14 04:50, David Miller wrote:
>> Proper stewardship of the ARIN function demands that ARIN policy
>> adjust to what happens in the market.  It's not the other way around,
>> if only because that's not how markets work.
>> If, and only if, one redefines ARIN's function as *only* bookkeeping.
> Once ARIN runs out of IPv4, it's only function in IPv4 will be the bookkeeping.

I realize that is what the brokers want, but that is not necessarily the case. It is up to the community to decide whether we want to preserve a policy role or simply become book-keepers.

>>> The ARIN CEO, ARIN's General Counsel, the Harvard economist ARIN pays,
>>> professors who study markets, brokers who operate in the market, and
>>> buyers and sellers who buy and sell in the market have all told the
>>> ARIN community the same story for around 5 years now: the market is
>>> going to act as a market, and ARIN policy needs to be ready for it;
>>> ARIN policy needs to make sense with the dynamics of the market.
>> In addition to internet number resources, there are also 'markets' in
>> drugs, stolen cars, ivory, endangered species, and human slaves.
> Still, ARIN, like APNIC and the RIPE NCC, recognize the IPv4 Brokers and even provides a Listing service.
> 
> You can not compare the IPv4 market to the 'human slaves market'. One is legal, the other one is not.

OK, so compare it to the drug market. Some drug sales are legal and some are not.

>> The fact that a 'market' exists does not, in and of itself, imply that
>> policies should be adjusted so that the market can function more
>> efficiently.
>> 
>> There seems to be a hidden assumption here that number resources with
>> incorrect registration are "as good as" those with accurate
>> registration, and thus all that is being requested is that the db be
>> cleaned up.  If that were actually the case, then I doubt we would be
>> having this discussion.
> My router will not care if the database registration is accurate.

Perhaps, perhaps not. This depends in part on the implementation of RPKI and in part on whether the people configuring your router choose to continue to operate on a cooperative internet in compliance with the system for maintaining uniqueness as it exists. If that cooperation breaks down, it leads to very interesting times for the IPv4 internet. If that system is preserved and router operators continue to operate in a cooperating fashion, then it leads to greater stability and a more functional internet.

>> If there is a benefit to accurate registration through legitimization of
>> this market on an unlimited scale, that outweighs the negative impacts
>> of hoarding, speculation, and IPv6 denial, then I haven't seen it yet.
>> I am, however, open to being convinced.
> The market is already legitimized. Check the RIR websites and their links to the market and the recognized IPv4 Brokers.

You are ignoring the last 3/4 of his statement and it discredits your argument. Nobody is arguing against the legitimacy of the market at this point. What is being argued is whether we want the wild west of a completely unregulated market or whether the application of policy to govern the market according to the consensus of the community is preferred.

Owen