On 9/24/2014 10:15 AM, John Curran wrote:
Both "conservation" and "excluding speculators" are modified significantly in their meaning if we
have big players locking up exclusive access to /8s via these kinds of contracts. For instance, under "Maintain
needs assessment as is" the conclusion is (incorrectly) "Conservation: ... This keeps addresses available for
others. Wealth alone is not sufficient to claim addresses."
You omitted the paragraph which follows -
".. As in all approaches evaluated in this document, speculators can enter into
forward contracts in order to capture the economic substance of a transaction without
formal recognition by ARIN."
I omitted the part about speculators because I was focused on its
conclusion with regard to conservation. Which I believe to be inaccurate.
i.e. the conclusion is accurate but the result (as acknowledged
in the paper) limited to the extent that ARIN policy is followed.
There is nothing about ARIN policy that prevents me for entering into a
contract that restricts a party from ever releasing their address space
to someone else.
If we want to claim that the conclusion is accurate about conservation
because we're excluding reality, then we could go ahead and make a lot
of other even more interesting statements which are also not supported
by reality.
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.
