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

[Ray Hunter]

Once again I declare my neutrality. I'm neither pro nor anti Microsoft, 
Nortel, Addrex, or anyone else mentioned in the discussion.

I am aware of that transaction from press reports. As I understand it, 
Microsoft bought a defunct portion of a company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy 
in order to obtain access to a chunk of legacy space.

According to press reports, 80 parties were contacted by Addrex and 
Nortel. Were major Asian providers like China Mobile China Telecom, and 
Bharti Airtel// on that contact list? I don't know.

But just because two companies like Microsoft and Addrex do something 
once in the US (and potentially "get away with it") certainly does not 
IMVHO set a precedent for global policy on how to run the Internet, nor 
establish a market value for an IPv4 address.

In fact one could very succinctly argue that precisely this example 
could/should trigger the ARIN / ICANN community to now officially adopt 
a tighter /explicit policy like example #7 I mentioned.

7) Ask ARIN to prevent any and all transfers that are motivated purely 
by financial gain, and instead insist that such participants return IPv4 
allocations to the unallocated pool "for the benefit of the Internet 
Community" once the existing allocation is no longer needed.

The ARIN community directs how ARIN operates. Microsoft are also members 
of the ARIN community.

The Internet is far bigger than the US. As others have warned, there's 
potentially a huge risk of organizations like the ITU and the WTO 
getting involved in a major trade dispute. I doubt if anyone would look 
forward to that conflict, or that (m)any in the Internet community would 
indeed benefit.

regards,
RayH

Mike Burns wrote:
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Ray Hunter <mailto:v6ops at globis.net>
>     *To:* Mike Burns <mailto:mike at nationwideinc.com>
>     *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>     *Sent:* Monday, May 02, 2011 2:53 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict
>     ofinterest/IPaddresspolicy pitched directly to ICANN
>
>     No one owns the addresses today. They're just 32 bit numbers.
>     That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less. No one ever owned the
>     addresses. They have zero intrinsic value.
>
>     Ray,
>     That train has left the station. Nortel sold addresses to
>     Microsoft for $7.5 million.
>     Addresses which have been allocated very obviously have a value
>     different from a random string of 32 bit numbers.
>     You can argue that they shouldn't, you can argue that correct
>     stewardship would be to establish policies to kill IPv4 and thus
>     transition more swiftly.
>     But you can't argue that they have zero value.
>     Regards,
>     Mike
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110502/3a5d0321/attachment.htm>