[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

* David Conrad

> On Sep 23, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>> What I do not understand, is why anyone would expect that a company
>> that has no need and no interest in IPv4 address space would go out
>> and buy some.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation

We have a 24-month cooling-off period in our transfer policy where a
recently received allocation may not be transferred further. I am not
sure that I would agree that this is a «short or medium term» (as it
says in the linked-to specification) investment horizon, when we're
talking about IPv4. I believe this cooling-off period in itself works as
a deterrence against some that would otherwise be interested in engaging
in speculation, at least the short-term kind.

Nevertheless, it would certainly be possible to engage in more long-term
(24 months ++) speculation or "investment" into the IPv4 market.
However, as the ulterior motive for any speculator/investor LIR is
financial gain, I highly doubt that they would simply "sit on" their
inventory for the 24 months required by policy. Rather, I think they
would try to make them generate a revenue stream in that period - by
leasing them out, for example. In doing so, they would actually be
performing the core duty of any LIR and thus end up having "justified
need" as valid as any other.

While it is true that their End Users (i.e., the lessees) under 2013-03
would not require "need", I highly doubt that an organisation that do
not have any need would be interested leasing IPv4 in the first place.
There are no shortage of organisations that do have plenty of need in
the region; those are the ones that would be willing to actually pay for
leasing IPv4 in the first place.

So what I think it all comes down to is that the IPv4 market under
2013-03 won't be significantly different from the IPv4 market we have today.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson