> And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and Owen > relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all resource > holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the most effective > ongoing needs-test of all. By their nature,
No, it is not. There are so many ways that market forces distort and incentivize in ways contrary to actual need that I don't know where to begin. > corporations who recognize unused but valuable and perishable assets in their > possession will seek to monetize them. In some cases, however, monetizing them can occur in ways other than maximizing utilization. For example, denying your competitors access to those resources can be seen as a strategic mechanism for monetizing those assets. Holding them hoping that the lack of supply will drive their value higher can also be seen as a way to increase the ability to monetize them. Maximal monetization may be achieved through maximum fragmentation as well. > The gimlet eye of the corporate accountant works unceasingly to bring IPv4 > addresses into efficient use through the transfer market in a way that vague > ARIN threats never could. We should work to make that market more predictable > and robust in order to best harness those efficiencies. That is an artificially rosy and IMHO naive version of what would likely happen in an unregulated unrestricted transfer market. Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
