<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I am merely pointing out that a market based approach is highly
unlikely to succeed in a consensus-based Internet, and that it brings a
number of serious risks. I think I have established that quite clearly.<br>
<br>
Many in the ARIN community think that ARIN have the authority to
reclaim allocations if they are no longer needed.<br>
<br>
The debate over address "ownership" and "value" will probably continue.
Possibly in the courts.<br>
<br>
Jeffery Lyon hits the nail on the head:<br>
<br>
> Why would ARIN want to allow sales of space outside the region?
<div class="moz-txt-sig">> -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
</div>
<br>
Because otherwise the WTO might get involved, as it could be construed
as an unfair restriction on trade that China and India have fewer IPv4
addresses than people, whereas the US has a 5:1 ratio, and now China
and India are being asked to pay for more IPv4 addresses or can't get
hold of them at all?<br>
<br>
PS Do you think the Ben Bernanke idea might have legs?<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
RayH<br>
<br>
Mike Burns wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:921C6A7057A94379A7D4267C47D2ABEC@mike" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Now you would ask ARIN not only
whether the addresses are justified in their opinion, but also to judge
the financial motivations of the participants?</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Under what policy would ARIN be able
to have legacy addresses returned to the free pool as you describe?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">In fact, the MS/Nortel deal is not
the only transaction that has occurred, and the existence of
tradeipv4.com and other sites is testimony to the likelihood it will
happen again, policy or no policy.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Who knows which 80 companies were
contacted? Wouldn't it be better if the whole thing was conducted in
the open, so that ChinaTelecom could bid as well?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Why not an open and transparent
marketplace free from artifical and easily-scammable justification
regimes?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Regards,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">MIke</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div>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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Ray</font></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>