[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Transfer listingservice

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net]
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:13 PM
>> To: Kevin Kargel
>> Cc: Scott Leibrand; michael.dillon at bt.com; arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Transfer
>> listingservice
>>
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-
>>>> bounces at arin.net] On
>>>> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:09 AM
>>>> To: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
>>>> Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Transfer
>>>> listingservice
>>>>
>>>> That might work too, but ARIN counsel, the AC, and others involved
>>>> thought it belonged in the 2008-2 transfer policy, and the CEO has
>>>> said they don't plan to do a listing service without policy directing
>>>> them to do so.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think of the idea itself?
>>>>
>>>> -Scott
>>>>
>>> I probably should have mentioned that it is a nifty idea if it was
>>> just us
>>> NetOps working with each other and the lawyers and governments would
>>> keep
>>> out of it.  I just don't see much hope that the litigators and
>>> regulators
>>> will keep their fingers out of the pie.
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> Out of curiosity, do you think that litigators and regulators are more
>> likely (or maybe very likely) to keep their fingers out if, after
>> enabling the emergence of commercial IPv4 transfers, the RIRs take no
>> further actions of any kind related to any IPv4 markets that emerge
>> thereafter? Are your views on that probability-of-intervention
>> question based on any particular expectation about whether and how
>> IPv4 markets will actually work, or are they independent of all such
>> expectations (i.e., no matter how things turn out, it would be better
>> in all cases for the RIRs to take no position / no action at all)?
>>
>> TV
> 
> My expectation is now that we have valuated IP addresses that value and/or
> the 'ownership' of that value will be contested in courts which will bring
> in litigators.  Litigators will establish precedents and points in law that
> will now have to be considered in all matters.  Record keeping requirements
> will be much stricter to defend against legal actions.  
> 
> My expectation is also now that there is a quantifiable value assigned to IP
> addresses that governments will find a way to tax them, at the very least
> with sales tax on the exchange or transfer of a valued property, possibly
> also with a use tax and/or a recurring property tax.  Once governments have
> their pinkies in the mix then special interest groups will push government
> to regulate the distribution and use of IP addresses and the governments
> will be anxious to regulate the product in order to justify the taxes.  
> 
> I fear that 2009-1 has doomed us to a future of cost, cost controls and
> regulation and there is nothing we can do about it now.  The sleeping bear
> has been nudged and will soon awake.  This is beyond our control anymore.

Kevin there is a political component to all of this your missing.

The large ISP's clearly have it in their power to force IPv6 on the
Internet if they simply get together and unify against the customers
who don't want to pay for upgrades and the content providers who
don't want to buy new servers.

Right now the economic balance is that if your a large ISP there is 
little to no cost to continue to provide IPv4 to customers who already
have it and to new customers that want it.  But there's a lot of cost in
lost customers if you try to force customers to take IPv6

If government regulates and taxes IPv4 then now suddenly the ISP's
are on a see-saw, on one hand they lose money by dealing with the
government if they keep IPv4, on the other hand they lose money if
they tell customers to switch to IPv6 and the customers leave.

If government interference becomes too expensive, it suddenly is cheaper 
to tell customers the big ISP is dropping IPv4 and let chips fall where 
they may.  If all the large ISP's drop IPv4 at the same time, then they 
won't even have the customer loss - the customers will just have to suck 
it up.

Take for example the auto tire industry.  Bias-ply auto tires are 
cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to sell.  Yet we are all driving on 
radials now in a passenger car - because all of the tire manufacturers 
basically got together and agreed to stop selling bias ply tires in
passenger car sizes.  It
was not a customer-driven decision because there's always customers who
would have bought the cheaper bias ply tires simply because they were
cheaper.  And us customers had to suck it up and take it.

There are numerous examples of industries dominated by a few major
brands who colluded against customers and got their way.  It either
saved them money to do this or it caused average product prices to
rise, and they made more money on the margins.

Take the soft drink industry.  Soft drinks made with real sugar taste 
better - it's why Coca Cola is still made with sugar in Mexico.

But sugar is a lot more expensive than HFC's.  Both Coke and Pepsi
knew that if one of them switched to HFC's and the other didn't, then
the one that kept using sugar would get all of the customers.

So, Coke and Pepsi got together and both switched to HFC's at the same 
time - and neither one lowered prices - and as a result, the customers
had no choice but to start drinking HFCs.

Ted