Very pointed and very true!
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:12 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Steven Ryerse; Ted Mittelstaedt; <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
Socialism dies from economic failure or revolution.
Needs tests are dead. But beware the #IANA Transition.
Best,
-M<
> On Dec 19, 2014, at 20:05, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How do we change to the Capitalistic model from what we got now?
>>
>> Steven L Ryerse
>
>
> Thanks for the interesting discussion.
> Might I say in answer to your question above that a step towards that change
> would be 2014-14?
> Small operators could purchase a /24 without a needs test, yet the needs test
> remains in place for large transfers which some feel could imperil the market.
>
> And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and Owen
> relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all resource
> holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the most effective
> ongoing needs-test of all. By their nature, corporations who recognize
> unused but valuable and perishable assets in their possession will seek to
> monetize them. The gimlet eye of the corporate accountant works unceasingly
> to bring IPv4 addresses into efficient use through the transfer market in a
> way that vague ARIN threats never could. We should work to make that market
> more predictable and robust in order to best harness those efficiencies.
>
>
> Long version of above, feel free to ignore:
>
> 2014-14 would remove much of the uncertainty in the market, since it would
> cover most transactions and allow the buyer and seller to particpate without
> the uncertainty introduced by third-party veto in the form of a failed
> needs-test. IPv4 transactions are still a novel idea outside a small group of
> people. Many international transactions have built-in levels of FUD which are
> high even before considering the novelty of the core transaction and the
> natural reluctance to wire an up-front international payment for an asset so
> virtual in nature.
>
> Likewise for sellers, who are asked to initiate the transfer request with an
> entity (ARIN) which may or may not consummate the transaction, at its sole
> discretion. There is policy and procedure for the transfer of IPv4 resources
> when the request follows policy, but what procedure and policy is available
> to the seller if the transfer succeeds, but some contractual breach occurs
> between buyer and seller whose penalty is the reversion of rights to the
> Seller? Can the Seller sell his address rights under Net 30 terms, confident
> that ARIN (and potentially and coordinatedly APNIC) would revert Whois
> records to their original state if the breach could be demonstrated? Would
> that breach have to be demonstrated to a judge first, would ARIN respond only
> to a judge's order? Would ARIN respond to an Asian judge's order, or vice
> versa? FUD.
>
> Can an IPv4 asset possibly function as security if it can not be reliably and
> predictably transferred? I know a small business that wanted to borrow some
> money and secure it with their IPv4 stock, and use the funds to grow their
> business (thus utilizing their IPv4 stock). But who would make the loan if
> they could never collect on the secured asset?
>
> As a broker it would make transactions simpler and smoother for buyers if I
> could purchase a /16, have it as inventory, and then sell in, say, /24s.
> Today, when buyers want a very small block it is hard for them to find a
> broker interested, because the size makes it not worth the broker's time. And
> when a seller comes to broker and wants to sell a /24, the same logic
> applies. Few sellers with /16s are willing to endure 256 transactions in
> order to monetize their block. Net result is wasted space and unmet need. But
> if the broker had /16 in inventory and could eliminate all costs involved
> with a Seller's participation, selling individual /24s might be profitable,
> allowing the need of the smallest operator to be met. With 2014-14 it could
> at least be attempted.
>
> If all involved knew that the RIRs would be passive registrars of the
> transfers, FUD would be reduced and the market made more vital in my opinion.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
