On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jason, > > 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of > holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free, which > provide them with a competitive advantage over less endowed entities seeking > to purchase addresses at a much higher relative price. Yes, it has been argued. It hasn't necessarily been substantiated, nor has anyone raising said argument provided any real evidence to support it. > 2. It has been argued that larger ISPs have greater experience and resources > required to navigate the justification process, which provides them with a > competitive advantage over less experienced smaller entities. Again, argued, but not neither of the above statements has necessarily been substantiated. For example, a number of smaller ISPs have hired consultants to help them navigate the justification process. These consultants cost much less than the FTEs employed by the larger ISPs in support of the process, so, it could be argued that smaller ISPs have a competitive advantage because of that reduced cost of expertise. I'm not sure that argument holds water, either, but I don't completely buy into all the "competitive advantage" arguments about the larger ISPs. I think there are tradeoffs at any size and that while different sizes bring about different tradeoffs, the ARIN process is, generally, about as fair as it can be. > 3. Other registries have enacted policies restricting access to their last > /8s to provide an advantage to newer and smaller companies through their /22 > maximum restrictions. Applying your logic, this restriction allows the tiny > ISP some years of planning, but larger entities only a few days, so I assume > you also reject these policies for reasons of fairness. Those policies are actually to provide a disadvantage to any size established company in favor of nonexistent entities. > Your post could be read as a plea to remove needs testing transfers > altogether, for both the large and the small, in in the interests of > fairness, which I would also support. I believe the duration of the planning > horizon should be a matter of each business to decide on its own. As of now, > that duration is mandated by ARIN policy, which I believe is unfair and > arbitrary. Unfair and arbitrary for transfers, but not un-necessarily unfair > and arbitrary for free pool allocations. I do not think that it is unfair or arbitrary to have a time-horizon limit on the amount of resources one can remove from availability to others with need at one time. In fact, I think it is quite unfair to eliminate that limit. I believe that remains true regardless of whether those resources are being made available from a 3rd party or from the registry. > Remember the cap on needs-free transfers is designed to free up the market > to incentivize more transactions, each of which presumably entails the move > of addresses from lower-use states to higher-use states, while providing some > protection for market manipulations. I don’t believe that market manipulation > is a real threat, my discussion of the cap is in the context of providing > some protection for those who do think it is a threat. I do think un-booked > transactions are a real threat, and the lifting of needs-testing transfers is > designed to protect the integrity of Whois. I challenge you to defend that presumption. I remain utterly unconvinced that money alone can define the "higher-use" of addresses. Further, I see no reason to believe that if the protections put in place (including needs basis) in the current transfer policy are removed that it would be at all unlikely to see addresses purchased purely for purposes of speculating on the value of addresses in the future, thus moving them from under-utilized to perhaps un-utiliized. I don't know whether market manipulation is a threat or not. If you reduced the non-needs based cap to /22, I would be willing to accept the experiment. At /12, it's utterly inadequate protection and I cannot support it. I don't believe that un-booked transactions are as likely to occur as the anti-regulation zealots have made them out to be. For the most part, it is quite clear that those purchasing addresses want the addresses registered as a condition of purchase, so sellers are forced to go through the RIR system in order to complete the sales. As such, I'm a lot less worried about whois integrity (which so far has not been a problem) than about an unregulated market (which throughout history has proven time and again to be problematic at best in a multitude of contexts). Owen
_______________________________________________ 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.
