On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
What about a needs-free transfer cap?
It'd have to be per-timeframe (per year). A per-transfer cap would be
meaningless.
I support the idea, in general, of needs-free transfer cap, however, I'd
suggest that cap be based on the total amount of address space that an
entity controls rather than a per period or per transfer based cap.
In other words, if you are big enough to justify, in total, a /12 of
address space, then you are big enough to handle the burden of
justification. If you have less space than that, in aggregate, then the
needs requirement can be waived.
If shell corporations are a concern, then the cap can be made small enough
such that any attempt to corner the market would be easy to detect because
of the sheer number of shells necessary to do so. Perhaps it's possible
to hide the ownership of a dozen, but certainly not 100 or 1000.
It is worthwhile, however, to point out that if I wanted to hoard IPv4
address space, there's nothing stopping me from doing that using shell
corporations now, so I don't see how removing the cap for small
allocations really makes much of a difference.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
