[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] [Fwd: ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks]
On Feb 16, 2011, at 1:01 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> I oppose this policy proposal.
> IF this were to be successful, the time to do it was 2-4 years ago.
Maybe. But I think IPv4 exhaustion motivates a number of thoughts now that people weren't motivated by 2-4 years ago.
> Given the policy / political / legal uncertainty of what the ultimate
> outcome will be of answering the question: "for values of 'own' that
> include financial compensation for use of them, who 'owns' legacy IP
> space?" ...
This is a fundamental question, yes. It's not directly dealt with in prop 133, but it is an issue related to 133's motivation.
I'd argue that in the near future, some people will need IPv4 addresses less while others will be increasingly willing to pay for IPv4 addresses. It doesn't matter how absurd the notion of addresses as property might appear on the surface (I assume all intellectual property, property rights, etc, feel absurd to some people until they're established by law) the ability to route IP addresses has value.
> The only part of this that makes sense now is to ask
> large-enough-to-matter legacy holders what their usage is and to ask
> them to renumber if the answer is low and the effort reasonable, in
> the name of the common good. There's no downside to asking for that.
> Trying to force the issue seems like unnecessary and unproductive
I don't think that we can recover enough resources to help the overall community, no matter how we approach the recovery process. But we might be able to find enough resources to help those that are willing to pay for them. And holders might be more willing to provide resources if they're compensated.
Admittedly, prop 133 doesn't deal with this topic directly. But it would open the door to allow legacy resources alternative governance, market policy, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...