[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Matthew Petach]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Brandon Ross <bross at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>  On Jun 10, 2014, at 16:39 , Brandon Ross <bross at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>  On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>>  Your third item is absurd. If they don't find sellers with that much
>>>> space, then it means the market isn't as large as described and the problem
>>>> is even worse and market capture is even easier. Without a needs test or
>>>> the other restrictions in 8.3, it would not take years, it would take days.
>>>> Address space would be swept away as fast as it came available on the
>>>> market. It would be IP lotto for the uber-wealthy corporations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If these bad actors are willing to spend such amounts of money to
>>> capture the market, why wouldn't they do this with the needs test in place
>>> simply by locking up all the space under contracts instead?
>>>
>>
>> I can't guarantee that they won't. However, if it gets discovered that
>> they have, the collusion required to do so might have interesting
>> implications under the Sherman act. I might be wrong, but I think it would
>> be much harder to make a Sherman Act case if community policy permitted the
>> unrestricted outright sale and transfer.
>>
>
> Then can I assume that there's no evidence that shows that the Sherman Act
> is easier to enforce with or without supporting community policy?  And if
> so, since we agree that this can be done with or without a needs basis,
> doesn't the costs to the community to continue to enforce the needs basis
> outweigh any measurable benefit?


I cannot absolutely prevent you from stealing my furniture
if you so desire.  However, that doesn't mean I'm not going
to put a lock on my front door to at least make it harder for
you, and make it patently clear that you're doing so against
my express desires.

Likewise, the community cannot absolutely prevent people
from absconding with number resources; but we can put a
lock on the door, so that when the theft takes place, the
person making off with the goods has to do a fair amount
of work, and is absolutely aware that what they are doing
is against the desire and will of the community.

People are only in favour of needs-free transfers because
they think they can be one of the first people in line to get
while the getting's good.  I guarantee you, when all the
available addresses have been hoovered up, everyone
on this list that cried out for a free-for-all in the IP market
will be coming back to complain bitterly that there's
nothing left, and that we should have handled things
differently.  And I'll further warrant that their next target
will be the transition blocks that have been set aside.

I'll ask plainly; for everyone voting for needs-free
transfers; would you still vote that way, *if in doing
so, you were guaranteed to not be able to obtain
any number resources under the new policy*?
If not, I would claim your votes are not guided by
the good of the community; they're guided by
self-interest, and a hope and desire that you can
get something for less effort than you can by following
the current guidelines.  It's no different than people
pushing a pyramid scheme; "if I get in quickly,
I can make out like a bandit, and leave everyone
else later holding the bag."

*sigh*

I'm sorry.  I'm going to start saying things that
will offend people, and I'll end up with a bunch
of pissed off people if I continue.

Simply put, needs-free transfers is a recipe for
disaster, and I cannot in good conscience
support it.  I'll keep locking my car, and
closing my front door and locking it when I
leave, to make it clear to those around that
even though I cannot prevent them being taken,
at least those doing the taking will be under no
pretense they are anything but bad actors when
doing so.  :/

Thanks!

Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140611/cccceda3/attachment.htm>