[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

* Sylvain Vallerot

> On 25/03/2013 10:22, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> Yes, under the proposed policy it would be technically possible for an
>> LIR to obtain (through transfers) a larger amount of address space than
>> they have an operational need for.
> 
> And assign it without any control nor fair use because of the removal
> of the conservation goal and means (documentation, Ripe control).

In theory: yes. In reality: say what?

So imagine you're an LIR. You've just spent 1 million euros on a
good-as-new /16. What on Earth would cause you to then go ahead and
«assign it without any control»?

If there's such a LIR in existence I'm going to set up camp outside
their HQ, in the hope that they will opt to throw those 1 million euros
out the window instead. This actually seems more likely to happen, as
there's less paperwork involved. ;-)

> It is not worth buying it all either if you cannot resell it to whom
> you want.

If you by "resell" here mean to sell the entire allocation to another
LIR, then keep in mind that both in current policy, and also under
2013-03 policy, you cannot resell the allocation until 24 months have
passed. So IPv4 addresses isn't going to be a very attractive investment
object for speculators.

Or, if you by "resell" mean "make assignments to your customers", then
you have an operational need anyway, and you're allowed to buy the
allocation under today's policy too. 2013-03 makes no difference in this
case.

> Selling to richest first is possible with 2013-3 deregulation.

It's possible today too, if the buyer has "operational need". And
there's no shortage of LIRs with operational need, just look in the LIR
Portal's Listing Service.

So for anything to actually change from today's status quo, an LIR
without any operational need would have to be willing to pay more money
for the addresses being sold than all the LIRs with actual and possibly
desperate operational need. This seems rather far-fetched to me.

> What happens when a vital ressource becomes rare usually ? Free market
> is regulated, rationing is set in place for everyone to get a chance to
> survive. Cheaters make black market that restores "free market" logic,
> where richest buy first and poors starve.
> 
> Allocation transfer allows the black market to I does not lead to abuse
> since regulation of final step selling is in place. Deregulation makes
> money oriented reselling allowed. This is black market made legal,
> rationing screwing.

So if we going to have a market where LIRs trade allocations in any
case, isn't it then better to make the market white, rather than black?

Keep in mind that one of the stated goals of the address policy is:

«Registration: The provision of a public registry documenting address
space allocations and assignments must exist. This is necessary to
ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet
troubleshooting at all levels.»

The existence of a black market runs counter to this goal, because the
NCC will not be informed of the transactions and therefore won't be able
to keep the registry up to date.

> I think you got my point.

As I understand it, you're principally opposed to direct LIR-to-LIR
transfers of any sort, and would like to see the NCC instead reclaim and
redistribute unused address space from the LIRs according to a need
principle. Since 2013-03 is relaxing the existing rules covering
LIR-to-LIR transfers to some extent, you are opposed to the proposal. Is
that about the gist of it?

Best regards,
Tore Anderson