[ppml] RFC 1744 and its discontents

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:29AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
  Tom Vest wrote:
  > "Address Ownership Considered Fatal"
  > Yakhov Rekter
  > March 31, 1995
  > 
  > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps
  
  Both this reference and RFC1744 are illustrative of the observation
  that study of this topic and the issues relating to the "role" of
  addresses in the context of the Internet is not a recent occupation,
  and that folk have been thinking about this for some years. So in
  response to KC's comment in the policy session at the ARIN meeting
  today, one can point to such studies (and related studies associated
  with thge PIARA activity in the IETF in 1996) and say that there is
  some level of longer term work in this area. Also, as far as I can see
  both RFC1744 and the Rekhter document both are supportive of a lease
  concept (Corollary 3, page 12 of the Rekhter presentation, RFC1744,
  section 3, para 4).

geoff,

we're proposing to turn the economic architecture of the Internet 
addressing (and as we know, that includes routing) system upside 
down, and as backup material we're using two essays (ok one essay 
and 15 slides) reflecting observations of two individuals, written 
last century when circumstances were substantially different, with 
no formal peer review, nor references to any related work in 
economics or market/regulatory transitions?

1744 is a nice essay and would make nice phd thesis proposal, 
but someone (or several) ought to go off and do the research 
and write a few theses.   i believe ben edelman is doing good
thinking and his writeups will be useful, but if we think
that's sufficient, we're in a heap of denial. the kneejerk
"but there is no truly related work; this is a whole new world!"
position i keep hearing from some of the smartest people i know
has me wondering how many days till men in suits come in and take over.

i've only spent a few hours thinking about this, but i see at
least 5 specific research questions that the registries should
[get icann to use some of their $57M/yr budget to, or do themselves 
if icann won't] sponsor and guide an interdisciplinary working group 
to rigorously study and get peer reviewed publications for the 
community to learn from before even launching any proposals:

	(1) comparison of ip address allocation and spectrum 
	allocation, including different models used in different 
	countries, and metrics for evaluation of efficiency
	and consumer surplus generated 
	
	(2) comparison to other industries privated in this country: 
	electricity, natural gas, trucking, airlines, telecom 

	(3) comparison to other industries privated in other 
	countries, esp G7

	(4) comparison to other industries privated in our own 
	field: ip transit, dns

	(5) comparison to other market reforms in last 200 years:
	russia, china, india, latin america.  

for each comparison, the similarities and differences to address 
markets should be compared, metrics of success proposed/described, 
data gathered/analyzed, models built.  

otherwise this exercise looks like promoting blatant cyberlandgrab, 
which i don't believe is what any of the registries intend.
(good intentions are not sufficient here, we also need good research.)

k