On 6/6/2014 2:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/6/2014 7:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Removing needs basis from 8.3 transfers doesn’t do that and it has a number of
other harmful outcomes as previously discussed.
Can you name a harmful outcome of removing needs basis from 8.3 transfers that
doesn't already exist in the form of contracts that lock sellers to future
buyers and/or contracts that allow the use of address space by another entity?
As I have stated, we cannot block all mechanisms which circumvent policy. Yes,
you can still produce the negative outcomes by circumventing the intent of
policy. Bad actors will, of course do so. If you have strategies for
effectively preventing bad actors from doing so, then I am open to discussing
those.
If you just want to use the fact that bad actors can circumvent policy by means
we cannot control as a justification for eliminating policy, then this has been
discussed and I still find that position unconvincing.
That's only the first part of said justification. First off, lets stop
calling them "bad actors": A company with shareholders that knows it
will need IPv4 space over the next 3 years has employees that are
legally obligated to enter contracts that will ensure that they can
acquire that space once ARIN can not longer provide it. These contracts
will take the form of right of first refusal, lock-ups, or leasing of
space and none of them can be controlled or prevented by ARIN. The
employees are not acting in bad faith and the companies are not as a
result "bad actors". They are simply participants in a market for a
limited resource... no need to assign a value judgement to them.
And there will be "needs justification"... only it will be done by the
interaction of the market and their CFO... the company will work out how
much space it needs over what it believes is a reasonable planning
horizon and then use that as justification for releasing the funds
necessary to enter into those contracts.
Next, I and many others believe that there is a danger to the registry
once such a market becomes prevalent. Specifically, that the accuracy of
the registry will suffer. It will, more and more often, fail to reflect
who is using and/or controlling the use of the address space, instead
containing some historical trivia.
I can foresee an avalanche effect, where as the registry becomes less
and less accurate, participants in the IPv4 market find it less and less
necessary to ensure that their own transfers or leases are reflected in
the registry... a sort of "broken windows" effect where it simply
becomes more and more acceptable to not care.
If you think that's a likely outcome, and that such a thing would be bad
for ARIN, you should support making it easier for people who are doing
perfectly legitimate things to record those things in the registry. I do.
If you think that the market prices and the long-term risk created by
the introduction of IPv6 make hoarding and speculation or even
significantly overestimating ones own need unlikely, then there's no
reason to oppose removing specific needs justification as a requirement
to record a transfer in the registry. I don't.
Matthew Kaufman
_______________________________________________
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.
