On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 10, 2014, at 16:39 , Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
Your third item is absurd. If they don't find sellers with that much space,
then it means the market isn't as large as described and the problem is even
worse and market capture is even easier. Without a needs test or the other
restrictions in 8.3, it would not take years, it would take days. Address space
would be swept away as fast as it came available on the market. It would be IP
lotto for the uber-wealthy corporations.
If these bad actors are willing to spend such amounts of money to capture the
market, why wouldn't they do this with the needs test in place simply by
locking up all the space under contracts instead?
I can't guarantee that they won't. However, if it gets discovered that
they have, the collusion required to do so might have interesting
implications under the Sherman act. I might be wrong, but I think it
would be much harder to make a Sherman Act case if community policy
permitted the unrestricted outright sale and transfer.
Then can I assume that there's no evidence that shows that the Sherman Act
is easier to enforce with or without supporting community policy? And if
so, since we agree that this can be done with or without a needs basis,
doesn't the costs to the community to continue to enforce the needs basis
outweigh any measurable benefit?
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Skype: brandonross
Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross
_______________________________________________
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.
