[arin-ppml] "Eligibility for Receiving IP Address Transfers — Evaluating Alternative Policy Options"

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 9/24/2014 10:15 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
>> Both "conservation" and "excluding speculators" are modified significantly in their meaning if we have big players locking up exclusive access to /8s via these kinds of contracts. For instance, under "Maintain needs assessment as is" the conclusion is (incorrectly) "Conservation: ... This keeps addresses available for others. Wealth alone is not sufficient to claim addresses."
> You omitted the paragraph which follows -
>
> ".. As in all approaches evaluated in this document, speculators can enter into forward contracts in order to capture the economic substance of a transaction without formal recognition by ARIN."

I omitted the part about speculators because I was focused on its 
conclusion with regard to conservation. Which I believe to be inaccurate.

>
> i.e. the conclusion is accurate but the result (as acknowledged
> in the paper) limited to the extent that ARIN policy is followed.

There is nothing about ARIN policy that prevents me for entering into a 
contract that restricts a party from ever releasing their address space 
to someone else.

If we want to claim that the conclusion is accurate about conservation 
because we're excluding reality, then we could go ahead and make a lot 
of other even more interesting statements which are also not supported 
by reality.

Matthew Kaufman