On Jun 24, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now the boogeyman has morphed into a hypothetical formal investment fund for
> IPv4 addresses.
Mike -
I have had financial organizations ask me specifically about “investability”
in IPv4 number resources, and explained both our current policies and the
policy development process (I also pointed them at the list of transfer
facilitators, to gain additional perspectives from the “market” itself.)
> 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.
I have no idea if it is prudent to include this provision or not, but was
noting that it could have a material effect in some cases.
> ... 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?
Having explained the requirements for compliance with transfer policy and
the potential for resource review and reclamation in the case of fraudulent
representations during a transfer, the financial types that I have spoken to
have indicated exactly that point - their risk management departments would
not sign off on an investment structure that requires representations that
are
not clearly and evidently valid.
There is no doubt that the present representations required are sufficient
to
preclude their direct speculation in IPv4 number resources, and my point
was only that if the community continues to desire that outcome, it may be
achievable with less complicated (but still legal strong) policy language,
such as that contained in 8.5.2. (I will leave it to you and others on the
list
the entirely different questions of whether that outcome is desirable or
not…)
> 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.
See above - I have no desire to cast aspersions on any policy positions,
but I am obligated to support the policy development process and this
includes sharing information that might not be otherwise apparent to the
community.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
