[arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region

[John Curran]

On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>   So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4
>> transfer policy, and why?
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> My knee-jerk response is that there are two distinct needs for the
> existence of a transfer policy.
> 
> Need #1: So that organizations may buy and sell portions of their
> networking business and have the registry accurately reflect the
> current owner of those business elements.
> 
> Need #2: So that IP addresses may be quickly and efficiently
> reassigned from one organization's lower-value applications to
> another's higher-value applications.

Bill -

Could you clarify the attributes of each of these requirements?
Is #1 the need to transfer along with operational network, and 
#2 the need to move IP addresses to a better economic use, 
or do I misunderstand your distinction?

> Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to start with the
> underlying need for ARIN to have a transfer policy and drill down
> later. Minimum block size is a secondary objective we might want
> addressing policy in general (including a transfer policy) to achieve.
> It's not specific to transfer policy and doesn't drive the need for
> transfer policy.

Alas, I was unclear…  I said “need for transfer policy” when I was truly
thinking slightly beyond that into “requirements for a transfer policy”,
which would include any secondary objectives.  Obviously, if no IPv4
transfer policy is needed, then there is no requirement with respect to
minimum size block - I perhaps jumped the gun and presumed that 
there would clearly be a need identified for such a policy and that other 
related requirements of any such policy should be discussed.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN