[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict ofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

[Mike Burns]

>The point being that globally unique IPv4 addresses will only have value to a corporation whilst the majority of their target customers continue to use them as on today's consensus-based Internet.

>If all of your customers have migrated to IPv6, they're worthless

>If the IPv4 Internet has fragmented, they're worthless.

>Is it 100% clear to everyone who actually "owns" all of the current IPv4 address allocations today?

>Also, the future of the Internet is clearly mobile. There are already about as many mobile Internet users in China as there are people in the US, if not more. Same story in India. Even in the US, there simply won't be >enough IPv4 addresses to cover a mass move to mobile devices no matter how much you're prepared to pay for them.

>So assuming that any semblance of an efficient market in globally unique IPv4 numbers can be created now is IMHO highly questionable. 

>Ray Hunter


Hi Ray,

I'm sorry but I don't see how the prior statements lead to the conclusion that an efficient market in globally unique IPv4 numbers can not now be created.

Is it because there is confusion over who actually "owns" the current IPv4 allocations today?

Because that goes right to the issues with whois veracity that I think will be improved with competing registries, and is likely to improve anyway, as IP address values are understood and claims are made.

Yes, IPv4 addresses only have value if customers use them on the Internet. Yes, if all customers migrate to IPv6, they are worthless, and yes, if the IPv4 is fragmented to the point of non-usability, they are worthless.
Yes, there will be continued demand for addresses that will be larger than can be accomodated if by the IPv4 pool, if the Internet retains it's current single-level NAT architecture.

But I don't see how the conclusion that a viable market cannot be created follows from your statements, though.Some  have posted that the market will provide incentive to transition that is otherwise lacking, a problem described way back by a prescient John Curran over 15 years ago.

http://www.armware.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc1669.html

Certainly you have elucidated risks to those who participate in those markets, but those risks will presumably be known to participants, and presumably were known to Microsoft before they paid $7.5 million.

Regards,

Mike Burns
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110502/106b4c6a/attachment.htm>