[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamental, conflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Ray Hunter <v6ops at globis.net> wrote:
> Whilst I don't necessarily agree than an IPv4 address has any "value", and
> it's your idea to create an (artificial) market where address allocations
> attract a hard dollar value (which they traditionally haven't had), I would

We have seen legacy IPv4 addresses space exchange hands for cash.
That's not in question (for most people) and I'm not sure why you
think that it may be.

> note the following concern: Any legal entity that transfers an intangible
> asset across an (international) border for a payment is almost certainly
> going to attract the attention of more than one government entity regarding
> accounting and taxation, not least for Value Added Tax, international
> transfer pricing, avoidance of income tax ......
>
> See for example
> http://www.kluwerlaw.com/Catalogue/titleinfo.htm?ProdID=904119925X
>
> The ARIN service region includes Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic
> islands, and the United States. The Internet is even bigger.
>
> So would your market free of government restrictions and taxes be
> international, limited to national boundaries? NAFTA? state boundaries? or
> what?
>
> Would corporations and not for profit entities now have to enter an asset
> value in their annual accounts for the value of an IPv4 allocation?
>
> If something has a value, and can therefore be taxed, it's much more likely
> to attract more government control, not less. Just look at the wireless
> spectrum allocation auctions. Is this what you want for the Internet?
>
> Be careful what you wish for.
>

[ .. ]

> My interest is in having a market for the buying and selling of IP addresses
> free from government and psuedo-government restrictions like taxes and
> justification requirements.


Providing a return on the investment initially provided for by the
taxpayers of the United States is not a bad thing. Thinking that one
could or even should be able to engage in transactions involving such
large sums of money and avoid scrutiny by government is "too good to
be true".

Best,

-M<