On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:32 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/23/14, 14:38 , Steven Ryerse wrote: >> This is an example of how policies penalize legitimate organizations >> needing to do legitimate transfers. In my opinion the Polices have >> swung so far towards preventing abuse they impact legitimate transfers. >> In the publicly traded company world, each quarter is like a year and a >> year is like 4 years to them since they have to publish their quarterly >> results 4 times a year. For them a year is an eternity. Also, the >> Internet itself has allowed business functions that once took months or >> years to take days or weeks which is todays reality. Some of y’all >> think 12 months or even 18 months is a short time but that doesn’t align >> with the reality of today’s business world that the Internet has helped >> foster. >> >> Although I don’t like abuse either, I am definitely AGAINST raising the >> hold period to be longer than a year. If it has to be a year then at >> minimum, there should be a procedure defined in the policy that an >> organization can appeal to the ARIN CFO (or whoever) to get an exception >> for a shorter timeframe – even as short as 30 days. If what the >> organization is doing is legitimate and the ARIN CFO will approve it, >> then the 12 month hold rule should be waived. My 2 cents. > > > I've been thinking about this maybe the restrictions for anti-flipping don't > belong in section 8 at all. Maybe they belong in section 4 as they are > intended to protect the ARIN IPv4 free pool.
I disagree. I don’t want to see flipping become a tool for speculation in the market post-exhaustion, any more than I want to see it become a tool for draining the free pool. In fact, I think that the former might be significantly more harmful than the latter at this point. > The restrictions were needed because we enabled Inter-RIR transfers, so they > were included with the Inter-RIR transfer policy. I'm beginning to think > this may have been a mistake. Tactically we allowing IPv4 allocations to > remain liberal and restricting transfers. I don’t see a problem with that. I have no desire to encourage transfers as a primary choice. I think it is, in fact, just bad policy to do so. Transfers should, IMHO, be viewed as a last resort when free pool options have been exhausted. > It may be more effective to be more restrictive on the allocation of IPv4 > resources and more liberal on transfers. I see no benefit whatsoever from this approach. I think it would do more harm than good. cf. deck chairs. > I think part of the reason we didn't do this is that we were trying to > minimize the changes to allocation policy because of run-out and not wanting > to have uncertain effects on the end-game of run-out. So we've placed the > restrictions on transfers as the new policy items rather than the the > allocation policies. > > I'll note, that several people have advocated liberalizing transfer policies > for a while now. However, they have not also advocated the accompanying > restrictions that would be necessary on the allocation policy side. I'll > also note, that at this point it may be to late for this type of radical > change. I’ll also note that several people have been arguing against significant liberalization of transfers and I have not seen any indication that there is anything approaching consensus towards such liberalization. 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.
