[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 6/6/2014 2:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Jun 6, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/6/2014 7:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Removing needs basis from 8.3 transfers doesn’t do that and it has a number of other harmful outcomes as previously discussed.
>>>
>> Can you name a harmful outcome of removing needs basis from 8.3 transfers that doesn't already exist in the form of contracts that lock sellers to future buyers and/or contracts that allow the use of address space by another entity?
> As I have stated, we cannot block all mechanisms which circumvent policy. Yes, you can still produce the negative outcomes by circumventing the intent of policy. Bad actors will, of course do so. If you have strategies for effectively preventing bad actors from doing so, then I am open to discussing those.
>
> If you just want to use the fact that bad actors can circumvent policy by means we cannot control as a justification for eliminating policy, then this has been discussed and I still find that position unconvincing.
>
>

That's only the first part of said justification. First off, lets stop 
calling them "bad actors": A company with shareholders that knows it 
will need IPv4 space over the next 3 years has employees that are 
legally obligated to enter contracts that will ensure that they can 
acquire that space once ARIN can not longer provide it. These contracts 
will take the form of right of first refusal, lock-ups, or leasing of 
space and none of them can be controlled or prevented by ARIN. The 
employees are not acting in bad faith and the companies are not as a 
result "bad actors". They are simply participants in a market for a 
limited resource... no need to assign a value judgement to them.

And there will be "needs justification"... only it will be done by the 
interaction of the market and their CFO... the company will work out how 
much space it needs over what it believes is a reasonable planning 
horizon and then use that as justification for releasing the funds 
necessary to enter into those contracts.

Next, I and many others believe that there is a danger to the registry 
once such a market becomes prevalent. Specifically, that the accuracy of 
the registry will suffer. It will, more and more often, fail to reflect 
who is using and/or controlling the use of the address space, instead 
containing some historical trivia.

I can foresee an avalanche effect, where as the registry becomes less 
and less accurate, participants in the IPv4 market find it less and less 
necessary to ensure that their own transfers or leases are reflected in 
the registry... a sort of "broken windows" effect where it simply 
becomes more and more acceptable to not care.

If you think that's a likely outcome, and that such a thing would be bad 
for ARIN, you should support making it easier for people who are doing 
perfectly legitimate things to record those things in the registry. I do.

If you think that the market prices and the long-term risk created by 
the introduction of IPv6 make hoarding and speculation or even 
significantly overestimating ones own need unlikely, then there's no 
reason to oppose removing specific needs justification as a requirement 
to record a transfer in the registry. I don't.

Matthew Kaufman