<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hi Rudi!<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks for the reply!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The reason I like /16 is because the only segment of ARIN customers who has it harder than the small guys are the medium-sized guys. The math on 80% utilization
becomes extremely difficult to achieve when you’re bigger than some but smaller than others. 15 years of doing this taught me that there’s a dangerous spot between /20 and /16 where efficiency is really super hard. So I think the /16 makes life easier for
the folks who are a bit bigger than small, but not nearly large enough to overcome the situation with money.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I hope that clarifies my post<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">David<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">David R Huberman<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Microsoft Corporation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Principal, Global IP Addressing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Rudolph Daniel<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> arin-ppml@arin.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Re: David's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>>>>2014-14 would work nicely.<br>
-get a "free" 8.3 transfer up to a /16<br>
-anything more requires strict needs basis <mechanism TBD><br>
-throw in a clause that ARIN has the right to refuse if it believes the free transfer is not being made in good faith because of speculation and multiple >>>OrgIDs..end quote.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>+1 on the above ..from data offerings and knowledge gleamed so far.<br>
But a free /16...as opposed to a smaller one..?? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>RD<br>
skype: rudidaniel<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sep 24, 2014 9:49 AM, <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-owner@arin.net">arin-ppml-owner@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and<br>
Simplified Needs Verification (Matthew Kaufman)<br>
2. Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20:<br>
Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification)<br>
(John Curran)<br>
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and<br>
Simplified Needs Verification (Mike Burns)<br>
4. Re: ARIN-2014-20 and current future looking needs assessment<br>
(Martin Hannigan)<br>
5. Re: Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy<br>
ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs<br>
Verification) (David Huberman)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:50:53 -0700<br>
From: Matthew Kaufman <<a href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at">matthew@matthew.at</a>><br>
To: David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> List \(<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>\)"<br>
<<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy<br>
Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:DE1F8AB3-4A29-4288-BAD1-187AEAE935D3@matthew.at">DE1F8AB3-4A29-4288-BAD1-187AEAE935D3@matthew.at</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Speculators and hoarders could already be locking up space via contracts that aren't even transfers (yet)... And yet I haven't seen much of that going on either. In fact, offers to buy or lease (or any other contract regarding) space are coming in less often
than a year ago, if anything.<br>
<br>
Matthew Kaufman<br>
<br>
(Sent from my iPhone)<br>
<br>
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:45 PM, David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> John wrote:<br>
><br>
>> A transfer policy mechanism which allows receipt up to a limit based on<br>
>> current holdings provides far more certainty for those who wish to plan<br>
>> for the future, as they can go to market knowing precisely that limit.<br>
><br>
> What is the virtue of a limit?<br>
><br>
> It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding. Those will always<br>
> happen outside the view of ARIN policy. Speculators and hoarders will<br>
> buy blocks on the open market and simply not engage ARIN because<br>
> there's no reason to. Contract law makes it trivial to ignore ARIN.<br>
><br>
> It's not conservation - there is no such thing as conservation in IPv4.<br>
> 85% of the address space ARIN issued over the last 10 years went<br>
> to less than 20 companies. (At a significant penalty, I might add, to<br>
> the little guys and especially new entrants, who got screwed in ARIN<br>
> policy for 17 years.)<br>
><br>
> Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about<br>
> the IPv4 market today. I am. I characterize it as VERY robust. Tons of<br>
> supply, with new suppliers showing up every month. Outside of China,<br>
> prices are low; it's a buyer's market. There's no speculation that I can<br>
> find, short of a one-off speculator who is a well-known fraudster. There<br>
> is certainly hoarding by the larger companies, but ARIN policy today<br>
> isn't stopping that, and no policy passed here can stop that. Think about<br>
> that last sentence carefully. ARIN policy is powerless to stop hoarding.<br>
><br>
> So how do we write policy that helps the non-big guys? By removing<br>
> artificial policy barriers that require lots of paperwork with ARIN beyond<br>
> simply, "I bought this /20 from this company, please update Whois".<br>
><br>
> ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide registrant,<br>
> and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an<br>
> RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the<br>
> transaction processing.<br>
><br>
> Let's simplify ARIN processes, make ARIN policy fit the REALITY of<br>
> network operations in a post-exhaustion world, and move on with<br>
> talking about RPKI, DNSSEC, IPv6 and other actually important things<br>
> that will shape our future.<br>
><br>
> David<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:54:38 +0000<br>
From: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
To: David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> List \(<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>\)"<br>
<<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy<br>
ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs<br>
Verification)<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:06449011-DCD9-4C6C-84A3-1F125D431200@arin.net">06449011-DCD9-4C6C-84A3-1F125D431200@arin.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:45 PM, David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> What is the virtue of a limit?<br>
><br>
> It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding. Those will always<br>
> happen outside the view of ARIN policy.<br>
> ...<br>
> Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about<br>
> the IPv4 market today. I am.<br>
> ...<br>
> There's no speculation that I can find, short of a one-off speculator<br>
> who is a well-known fraudster.<br>
> ...<br>
> ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide registrant,<br>
> and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an<br>
> RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the<br>
> transaction processing.<br>
<br>
David -<br>
<br>
You describe an interesting "present state", and presuming it is<br>
well-informed, it is probably extracting and making explicit some<br>
points in your worldview before continuing the discussion.<br>
<br>
You indicate -<br>
<br>
1) Hoarding and speculation can happen outside of ARIN's view<br>
<br>
This is almost certainly the case, as parties always free<br>
to contract for future behavior, including a party ceding<br>
its ability to transfer address rights to any other party.<br>
<br>
2) A limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter<br>
hoarding, due to point #1 above.<br>
<br>
3) A limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter<br>
speculation, due to point #1 above.<br>
<br>
4) Hoarding does occur, but there is no meaningful speculation<br>
that you can find.<br>
<br>
By "hoarding", I believe that you mean parties obtaining<br>
right to number resources in anticipation of future need<br>
to make use of them, as opposed to "speculation" whereby<br>
one obtains rights in anticipation of financial gain.<br>
<br>
If you are correct above, it does raise the question of "why<br>
isn't there abundant & apparent speculation going on today?"<br>
<br>
It can't be for lack of interest; investment firms will speculate<br>
on nearly anything that has good potential to beat the market.<br>
I've had investment firms ask about the 'rules and regulations'<br>
that apply to transfers of IP address rights for this very reason.<br>
<br>
The various policy merits of allowing hoarding or speculation are<br>
not mine to argue; that is for the community to ponder through the<br>
policy development process. However, you propose that we simplify<br>
ARIN processes and make ARIN policy fit reality; effectively that<br>
ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide<br>
registrant and that parties agree to the transfer.<br>
<br>
If community does as you suggest, both hoarding and speculation<br>
become readily available, and this represents a significant change<br>
from the present state as described by your worldview. A change<br>
which simply formalized the present state that you describe would<br>
not enable speculation, since you do not view that as abundant in<br>
the present system. The difference between the two outcomes comes<br>
down to whether or not the buyer is obtaining the resources in<br>
anticipation of future need or simply financial gain, i.e. is the<br>
buyer of the rights to the addresses a bona fide network operator.<br>
<br>
I'll assert that the present system is actually rather unfavorable<br>
to speculation; parties that seek to obtain the rights to address<br>
blocks without the real potential for future use are run a very risk<br>
of ending up in violation of policy and with impaired investments<br>
as a result. More specifically, your postulate [#3] above to the<br>
effect that a limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully<br>
deter speculation is likely not valid - the limit does indeed deter<br>
speculation today, as having to qualify eventually against needs-<br>
based limit requires the party to actually operate a network (or<br>
risk total loss of the investment, likely beyond the risk profile<br>
of the vast majority of potential investors.)<br>
<br>
Unless you are advocating for a policy shift to enable speculation,<br>
simplification of ARIN policy towards your "present reality" needs<br>
to be more than simply verifying that the seller is the bona fide<br>
registrant and that parties agree to the transfer; in particular,<br>
verification that the recipient is a bona fide network operator<br>
would also be required. That is an aspect presently implied in the<br>
needs-based limit on the size of an address rights transfer, but<br>
that element could be made explicit and retained, if limit itself<br>
is otherwise undesirable in your view.<br>
<br>
Interesting discussion - Thank you!<br>
/John<br>
<br>
John Curran<br>
President and CEO<br>
ARIN<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:52:52 -0400<br>
From: "Mike Burns" <<a href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com">mike@iptrading.com</a>><br>
To: "David Huberman" <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>>, "John Curran"<br>
<<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy<br>
Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification<br>
Message-ID: <D94590F128074A84AB76B5BDC495C573@ncsscfoipoxes4><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";<br>
reply-type=original<br>
<br>
Hi list,<br>
<br>
+1 to what David wrote.<br>
<br>
I would say it is a buyer's market, there are more sellers than buyers.<br>
Also demand for transfer IPv4 is not as high as demand for free pool IPv4 in<br>
the previous years.<br>
I believe this is due to companies being a litle more efficient internally.<br>
And there have been some fairly large CGN deployments as well.<br>
<br>
I see no evidence of speculation in transfers, even in RIPE after they<br>
effectively dropped needs tests for transfers.<br>
That last sentence should provide relief for those who have expressed this<br>
fear and expectation.<br>
<br>
I wouldn't call it robust yet, as there are still too few buyers.<br>
<br>
I agree that ARIN should become a lightweight registry service for IPv4,<br>
concentrating on our primary stewardship goal of registration and avoiding<br>
policy which works against accurate registration in the name of conservation<br>
which is already provided by the natural forces of a market.<br>
<br>
This will be cheaper for ARIN, easier for everyone to understand, consonant<br>
with property law, result in faster transfers, a more accurate registry,<br>
less verbose NRPM, reduce corruption potential, and free us for policy<br>
development in other areas.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "David Huberman" <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>><br>
To: "John Curran" <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
Cc: <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:45 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow<br>
Start and Simplified Needs Verification<br>
<br>
<br>
> John wrote:<br>
><br>
>> A transfer policy mechanism which allows receipt up to a limit based on<br>
>> current holdings provides far more certainty for those who wish to plan<br>
>> for the future, as they can go to market knowing precisely that limit.<br>
><br>
> What is the virtue of a limit?<br>
><br>
> It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding. Those will always<br>
> happen outside the view of ARIN policy. Speculators and hoarders will<br>
> buy blocks on the open market and simply not engage ARIN because<br>
> there's no reason to. Contract law makes it trivial to ignore ARIN.<br>
><br>
> It's not conservation - there is no such thing as conservation in IPv4.<br>
> 85% of the address space ARIN issued over the last 10 years went<br>
> to less than 20 companies. (At a significant penalty, I might add, to<br>
> the little guys and especially new entrants, who got screwed in ARIN<br>
> policy for 17 years.)<br>
><br>
> Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about<br>
> the IPv4 market today. I am. I characterize it as VERY robust. Tons of<br>
> supply, with new suppliers showing up every month. Outside of China,<br>
> prices are low; it's a buyer's market. There's no speculation that I can<br>
> find, short of a one-off speculator who is a well-known fraudster. There<br>
> is certainly hoarding by the larger companies, but ARIN policy today<br>
> isn't stopping that, and no policy passed here can stop that. Think about<br>
> that last sentence carefully. ARIN policy is powerless to stop hoarding.<br>
><br>
> So how do we write policy that helps the non-big guys? By removing<br>
> artificial policy barriers that require lots of paperwork with ARIN beyond<br>
> simply, "I bought this /20 from this company, please update Whois".<br>
><br>
> ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide<br>
> registrant,<br>
> and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an<br>
> RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the<br>
> transaction processing.<br>
><br>
> Let's simplify ARIN processes, make ARIN policy fit the REALITY of<br>
> network operations in a post-exhaustion world, and move on with<br>
> talking about RPKI, DNSSEC, IPv6 and other actually important things<br>
> that will shape our future.<br>
><br>
> David<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:27:44 +0200<br>
From: Martin Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com">hannigan@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2014-20 and current future looking needs<br>
assessment<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAMDXq5P_ySx9aC5Kkfyq93ry3MfGr1dnNUA5DgO7Rg4gmF=<a href="mailto:YJQ@mail.gmail.com">YJQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> You have always been able to get space from ARIN based on forward-looking<br>
> business cases, but it has been limited.<br>
><br>
> This applies to both free pool and transfers equally, though free pool being<br>
> limited to a 3-month window now for ISPs makes "forward" a little less<br>
> useful.<br>
<br>
<br>
Business plan is a useless term in this context. My earlier point<br>
which may not have been clear was that ARIN is not qualified to<br>
evaluate a business plan let alone compare my business plan to a<br>
competitors and make judgements as to what my (or their) need is. If<br>
they did do such a thing, it would be problematic. The three month<br>
window is a market limit not so much of a business limit unless ARIN<br>
unevenly applies the policies (which in my own view, they do).<br>
<br>
So with that said, yes, I agree, it applies to both free pool and<br>
transfer requests.<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> I would venture that most end-user initial allocations are based on at least<br>
> somewhat forward-looking projections.<br>
<br>
All submissions regardless of who submits them follow this theme. You<br>
tell ARIN what you want. They guess if its credible or not, then<br>
assign what you need or figure out what policy to use to avoid<br>
fulfilling the request.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
-M<<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:48:40 +0000<br>
From: David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>><br>
To: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft<br>
Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs<br>
Verification)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:dd33d38ad67b4bcea4ac0ecba4fbd3c6@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com">dd33d38ad67b4bcea4ac0ecba4fbd3c6@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I think John's message, with its new info that speculators call him regularly to learn the rules, leads to a fairly straightforward conclusion:<br>
<br>
2014-14 would work nicely.<br>
<br>
-get a "free" 8.3 transfer up to a /16<br>
-anything more requires strict needs basis <mechanism TBD><br>
-throw in a clause that ARIN has the right to refuse if it believes the free transfer is not being made in good faith because of speculation and multiple OrgIDs<br>
<br>
This makes life easy for non-big guys.<br>
<br>
It deters speculation.<br>
<br>
It keeps needs basis for those with all the money.<br>
<br>
What's the counter argument against 2014-14?<br>
<br>
David R Huberman<br>
Microsoft Corporation<br>
Principal, Global IP Addressing<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 4:54:38 AM<br>
To: David Huberman<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> List (<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>)<br>
Subject: Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification)<br>
<br>
On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:45 PM, David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> What is the virtue of a limit?<br>
><br>
> It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding. Those will always<br>
> happen outside the view of ARIN policy.<br>
> ...<br>
> Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about<br>
> the IPv4 market today. I am.<br>
> ...<br>
> There's no speculation that I can find, short of a one-off speculator<br>
> who is a well-known fraudster.<br>
> ...<br>
> ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide registrant,<br>
> and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an<br>
> RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the<br>
> transaction processing.<br>
<br>
David -<br>
<br>
You describe an interesting "present state", and presuming it is<br>
well-informed, it is probably extracting and making explicit some<br>
points in your worldview before continuing the discussion.<br>
<br>
You indicate -<br>
<br>
1) Hoarding and speculation can happen outside of ARIN's view<br>
<br>
This is almost certainly the case, as parties always free<br>
to contract for future behavior, including a party ceding<br>
its ability to transfer address rights to any other party.<br>
<br>
2) A limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter<br>
hoarding, due to point #1 above.<br>
<br>
3) A limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter<br>
speculation, due to point #1 above.<br>
<br>
4) Hoarding does occur, but there is no meaningful speculation<br>
that you can find.<br>
<br>
By "hoarding", I believe that you mean parties obtaining<br>
right to number resources in anticipation of future need<br>
to make use of them, as opposed to "speculation" whereby<br>
one obtains rights in anticipation of financial gain.<br>
<br>
If you are correct above, it does raise the question of "why<br>
isn't there abundant & apparent speculation going on today?"<br>
<br>
It can't be for lack of interest; investment firms will speculate<br>
on nearly anything that has good potential to beat the market.<br>
I've had investment firms ask about the 'rules and regulations'<br>
that apply to transfers of IP address rights for this very reason.<br>
<br>
The various policy merits of allowing hoarding or speculation are<br>
not mine to argue; that is for the community to ponder through the<br>
policy development process. However, you propose that we simplify<br>
ARIN processes and make ARIN policy fit reality; effectively that<br>
ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide<br>
registrant and that parties agree to the transfer.<br>
<br>
If community does as you suggest, both hoarding and speculation<br>
become readily available, and this represents a significant change<br>
from the present state as described by your worldview. A change<br>
which simply formalized the present state that you describe would<br>
not enable speculation, since you do not view that as abundant in<br>
the present system. The difference between the two outcomes comes<br>
down to whether or not the buyer is obtaining the resources in<br>
anticipation of future need or simply financial gain, i.e. is the<br>
buyer of the rights to the addresses a bona fide network operator.<br>
<br>
I'll assert that the present system is actually rather unfavorable<br>
to speculation; parties that seek to obtain the rights to address<br>
blocks without the real potential for future use are run a very risk<br>
of ending up in violation of policy and with impaired investments<br>
as a result. More specifically, your postulate [#3] above to the<br>
effect that a limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully<br>
deter speculation is likely not valid - the limit does indeed deter<br>
speculation today, as having to qualify eventually against needs-<br>
based limit requires the party to actually operate a network (or<br>
risk total loss of the investment, likely beyond the risk profile<br>
of the vast majority of potential investors.)<br>
<br>
Unless you are advocating for a policy shift to enable speculation,<br>
simplification of ARIN policy towards your "present reality" needs<br>
to be more than simply verifying that the seller is the bona fide<br>
registrant and that parties agree to the transfer; in particular,<br>
verification that the recipient is a bona fide network operator<br>
would also be required. That is an aspect presently implied in the<br>
needs-based limit on the size of an address rights transfer, but<br>
that element could be made explicit and retained, if limit itself<br>
is otherwise undesirable in your view.<br>
<br>
Interesting discussion - Thank you!<br>
/John<br>
<br>
John Curran<br>
President and CEO<br>
ARIN<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 111, Issue 60<br>
******************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>