I am assuming we'll need to tighten up this language to make it more
operational: specifically requiring attestation of operational use, not just
making a general statement about ARIN only issuing space to operational
networks. Would that help address your concern? If so, let's revisit after
Andrew and I and the AC shepherds figure out the exact revision we want there,
unless you have any specific suggestions for language we should consider.
-Scott
_____________________________
From: Mike Burns <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5:
Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>, Michael Peddemors
<[email protected]>, John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Hi Scott,
I see the harm in the inclusion of non-operational text which seems to put into
the NRPM something like a specific community expression against financial
speculation which I think is not necessary. This inclusion could end up being a
Trojan horse for future policy which could hinge on the assumption that the
ARIN community had made this overt expression.
As I said I support the intent of simplifying the transfer policy but I don’t
think 8.5.2 is necessary in light of NRPM 1.2 Conservation: Conservation of
these common number spaces requires that Internet number resources be
efficiently distributed to those organizations who have a technical need for
them in support of operational networks.
On the assumption that we don’t want wasted or non-op verbiage in the NRPM, why
is this section required?
Regards,
Mike
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:09 AM
To: Mike Burns <[email protected]>; Michael Peddemors
<[email protected]>; John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5:
Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
Mike,
I think you're misunderstanding the intent here. This very simple "operational
use" clause, that doesn't interfere with *any* legitimate transfers, is all
that should be needed to prevent financial speculation, and allow us to
dramatically simplify the needs test, or even remove it entirely in some cases
(like the /24 for new entrants). Unless you see some actual harm that the
clause would do, please just consider it "insurance" against an unlikely event
that some people are concerned about, so we can move on to actually simplifying
the rest of the policy.
-Scott
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:59 AM -0500, "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> wrote:
I do believe such a provision would have significant teeth with respect to
inhibiting IP address blocks as a viable large scale investment opportunity.
While those of questionable repute may want work around such provisions, it
would be rather difficult to establish a formal vehicle (i.e. fund) for
investment in IP resource blocks based on a requirement for the necessary
representations and the associated risk of loss of the entire investment in
cases of fraud. Other than that circumstance, I agree that it would be
fairly straightforward for most operating companies to make reasonable
representations based on anticipated needs without significant concern.
Thanks!/John Now the boogeyman has morphed into a hypothetical formal
investment fund for IPv4 addresses. Despite zero evidence of anybody buying
addresses and then reselling them for profit, we are asked to include this
non-operational chaff in the NRPM. Despite an atomized supply, despite
anti-flip provisions, despite IPv6 in the offing. I wonder again what is
keeping this fictional investment fund from opening a RIPE LIR and buying all
they want? For what it's worth, there are active buyers today seeking to
acquire millions of addresses which they desperately need for their operational
networks and planned growth. Guess what, despite having the largest warchests
around, they can't find sellers capable of meeting their needs. Why do you
think a fund would have any more luck? Where is your evidence that 8.5.2 would
have significant teeth regarding its inhibiting effect on viable large scale
investments in ipv4? Is this just your opinion? John, people can have different
views on whether IP blocks should be treated as other commodities, and thus
hedged, invested in, or speculated on. There is no need to cast aspersions on
those who have this view, and your language about "questionable repute" goes
beyond policy advice and veers into policy partisanship. Regards,Mike
_______________________________________________PPMLYou are receiving this
message because you are subscribed tothe ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected]).Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription
at:http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppmlPlease 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.
