[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Weyand [mailto:jweyand at computerdata.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:12 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
>Proposal
>
>
>This may violate the spirit of the various Memorandums of Understanding,
>etc. but shouldn't we let the market determine the value of IPv4
>addresses?
>
>Imagine if some central source (ICANN or the RIRs) created a service
>where transfers of IP address space could be registered like a county
>registrar of deeds.
>

There are several problem with this approach.

First, is that your inviting governmental 
regulation in where you really do not want it.  Governments clearly
have authority over buying and selling between people in their
countries in every country in the world.  They can tell you what you
can and cannot buy and sell, they can tell you how to do it, when you
can do it, and on and on and on.

Governments also go to the mat for wealthy corporations in their
borders because corporations fund governments, either by taxes or
bribery (ie: political campaign contributions)

You would end up with the wealthy networks and wealthy governments
using legal means to push the poorer governments and networks out
of the running for IPv4 addressing.

>In our world we commonly deal with limited resources.  For example,
>consider land in Florida.  There is no chance of switching to land in
>Florida v6.  Over many years we have developed mature, commonly
>understood methods of buying and selling land.  We have real estate
>agents, title companies, mortgage companies and the county registrar of
>deeds.
>

And you will find in Florida that the most desirable land is owned
by the wealthy.

That is an acceptable solution for the United States because the society
in the US has been conditioned to believe that it is OK for the rich
to get the best of everything.

However it is not what many societies in the world accept and from
a moral standpoint it is a solution rejected by just about every
mainstream religion in the world, as well as many secular schools
of philosophy.

>4) It would be unfair to regions and organizations of modest means.
>Maybe, but is it fair to make them upgrade to IPv6?  Isn't the fairest
>thing to allow them to make their own choice?  
>

IPv4 "sales" and "speculation" and all of that are going to happen,
I assure you.  And no matter how it happens it is going to be unfair
to some people.  However there is a huge difference between official
support and sanction of the deep pockets by IANA and the RIR's and
no official support and sanction.

It is very possible for the RIR's to take the high road here.  The
deep pockets that want to engage in billion dollar /8 sales to each
other do not need the help of the numbering authorities to do their
deals, they are going to do them if market conditions warrant with or
without official sanction.

If the RIRs stay the hell out of this then such activity will happen
for several years but eventually as conversion to IPv6 continues, such
activity will die off.

If they get into the thick of things then your going to establish an
infractructure that will last far longer than it is needed, and will
give a toehold for governments to interfere.

>Some of the advantages I can think of are:
>1) This something that CEO on an airplane can understand.  IPv4
>addresses are a resource.  Resources have a cost.  Markets determine
>costs.
>

Not for all resources.  For example, labor is a resource that as it
becomes scarcer and more expensive, costs have less and less effect.

If your in the market for ditch diggers you can get all you want
by adjusting your costs for them.

If your in the market for the 5 people who designed the last AMD
processor chip, you may find that no amount of money in the world
will obtain their services.  They may decide your a jerkoff.

If your in the market for a wife.... well I won't go there.

In any case, one of the requirements, probably the most important
requirement, for IP allocation is defining need.  That need is
based on what your customers and servers and network gear must have
to function.  It is not defined by how much IPv4 your planning on
selling.  All of this is current policy and would have to be swept
away to permit IP allocations based on how much IPv4 you want to
be able to sell in the future, but really don't need for your own use.

Ted