Why would someone buy a block in ARIN and resell it into APNIC, if the original seller could've just sold their block to the APNIC buyer? I don't see the arbitrage opportunity here, except with regards to the soon-to-be-exhausted free pool.
-Scott On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > I still have concerns in spite of said rejoinder. The rejoinder doesn't > address the ability to use this as a way to flip less expensive addresses > into higher profits by transferring out of region. All it does is protect a > free pool which likely won't exist by the time this becomes policy anyway. > > Owen > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 07:00 , Bill Darte <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb. 21 I sent the message (far below) to PPML asking the community to > support one of 3 alternatives or propose new language which makes one or > the other better, or a completely new wording which they believe > accomplishes the goal of producing policy language that is needed, > technically sound and improves existing policy in the 8.4 Inter-RIR > transfer realm. > > Summary of feedback so far: > 2 persons supporting #2 with the removal of "and its subsidiaries". There > was some support for the extended language of "and its subsidiaries having > been operational for a minimum of xx months" in order to mitigate the > rinse-repeat abuse that might accrue through new shell subsidiaries. > > There was some support for the alternative language expressed in #3 at the > PPC in Atlanta and at the ARIN AC meeting on Feb 20. This language simply > restricts the transfer of the block having been received...which would > allow other existing blocks or components to be transferred. One view > against #3 was expressed as "An org that currently has a /8 can obtain > the resources it needs and sell off the /8 out of region a few chunks at a > time by backfilling with new space from the ARIN region.". A rejoinder to > this was expressed pointing out that other existing language in 8.4 > states...."Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to > receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a > period of 12 months after a transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of > ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first." > <<< end summary >>>> > > > It is important that I receive a significant measure of support FOR or > AGAINST continuing to work on this Draft and before the ARIN AC meeting on > Mar 20, I would like to have better language to propose if we are to make > this Draft a Recommended Draft prior to the April PPM in Chicago. > > I would be grateful for your feedback as early as possible. > > bd > > <<<<<<<<< earlier email sent to PPML on Feb 21 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > At the Advisory Council's meeting of Feb 20, discussion about Draft Policy > 2014-2 concluded that there is a real issue with transfer restrictions of > address blocks between RIR jurisdictions for organizations having received > a different block of addresses from ARIN within the last 12 months (per > existing policy). > > The current Draft Policy language is as follows with only the last > sentence being added from what is current ARIN policy: > "Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer, > allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 > months prior to the approval of a transfer request. This restriction does > not include M&A transfers. Restrictions related to recent receipt of blocks > shall not apply to inter-RIR transfers within the same organization and its > subsidiaries." > > The last sentence of this language was added to mitigate the problems > related by the author in the problem statement and from experience. The > author supported this change, however, some concern has been expressed on > the PPML and within the AC about the possibility of 'rinse and repeat' > abuse associated with the ease of establishing new subsidiaries and using > those transfers to get around the restrictions of the existing transfer > policy. > > Three alternatives were primarily discussed and I wish to elicit feedback > from the community relative to each. > > 1. Use the existing last sentence as is and ask ARIN staff to be > particularly watchful for seeming abuse and to bring such back to the > community through regular Policy Experience Reports. There was discussion > about this option suggesting that by the time abuse was recognized and > reported, and given limited existing free pool stocks and the extended > policy development cycle....this option may be moot. > > 2. Remove the clause 'and its subsidiaries' or modify it in such a way as > to mitigate the risk of a laundering of addresses through fraudulent > transfers, but this may still potentially limit the utility to > organizations who may have complex organizational structures in use > internationally. > > 3. Take an alternative tack and simply restrict transfers on a per-block > rather than a per-organization basis. e.g. 'No block acquired within the > past 24 months would be eligible for transfer.' (The time frame is of > course an arbitrary number at this point.) > > If you believe this Draft Policy is improved most significantly by one of > the above alternatives, or through another alternative you can pose....I, > and the community would benefit from your input. Thanks, > > Bill Darte > Policy Shepherd for 2014-2 and > Advisory Council member > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
