[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

[John Curran]

On Jun 24, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> Now the boogeyman has morphed into a hypothetical formal investment fund for IPv4 addresses.

Mike - 
 
    I have had financial organizations ask me specifically about “investability”
    in IPv4 number resources, and explained both our current policies and the 
    policy development process (I also pointed them at the list of transfer
    facilitators, to gain additional perspectives from the “market” itself.) 

> Despite zero evidence of anybody buying addresses and then reselling them for profit, we are asked to include this non-operational chaff in the NRPM.

    I have no idea if it is prudent to include this provision or not, but was
    noting that it could have a material effect in some cases.  

> ... Where is your evidence that 8.5.2 would have significant teeth regarding its inhibiting effect on viable large scale investments in ipv4? Is this just your opinion?

    Having explained the requirements for compliance with transfer policy and 
    the potential for resource review and reclamation in the case of fraudulent
    representations during a transfer, the financial types that I have spoken to
    have indicated exactly that point - their risk management departments would 
    not sign off on an investment structure that requires representations that are
    not clearly and evidently valid.  
 
    There is no doubt that the present representations required are sufficient to
    preclude their direct speculation in IPv4 number resources, and my point 
    was only that if the community continues to desire that outcome, it may be
    achievable with less complicated (but still legal strong) policy language, 
    such as that contained in 8.5.2.  (I will leave it to you and others on the list
    the entirely different questions of whether that outcome is desirable or not…)

> John, people can have different views on whether IP blocks should be treated as other commodities, and thus hedged, invested in, or speculated on. There is no need to cast aspersions on those who have this view, and your language about "questionable repute" goes beyond policy advice and veers into policy partisanship.

    See above - I have no desire to cast aspersions on any policy positions,
    but I am obligated to support the policy development process and this 
    includes sharing information that might not be otherwise apparent to the 
    community.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN