[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
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).
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.)