[address-policy-wg] In favor of 2012-01

Hi,


>> this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the
>> seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the
>> same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally.
> 
> The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means.
> For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story.
> 
> Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can be governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a free pool) or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making trades among themselves) or some combination of both. All that matters is which method is more efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. Leave your religious beliefs behind.
> 
> But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. These transfers should be made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for holding

i actually have to agree to this mostly so far - at least theoretically speaking.
Some others might hate me for that opinion, but it's just formally correct like that and as i already stated before - i believe there's no
reason not to treat IPv4 resources as a "tradeable property". I checked with reality and it told me, the world the internet lives in is mostly a marked based one.

But from here on you're pretty much wrong, or ignore some facts:

> periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of religious faith in some circles, but the idea that RIR staff can accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and technical development, is just wrong. Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests. Let the price system sort out who really needs what.
> 

The RIRs and the community have shown that they can manage needs based allocation/assignment of scarce goods like IPv4 addresses pretty well the last decade(s) or so. Why on earth should it be pointless now just because there is (more) money involved?

You need to understand that, even if IPv4 resources might rather become a "tradeable property" than they are a "commons", it's anyways a "scarce property".
If we assume our marked economy usually is some kind of "social market economy", then there usually is some regulation to prevent a 
monopoly or misuse.

The easiest and least market intrusive way to prevent that is to just keep up with a needs assessment.
IF there is proof that some entity really needs the resources/IPv4 addresses, well, let them pay money for it, and allow a "trade" with another entity who doesn't need their resources anymore.

But don't allow company X to buy all available space just because they can with their billions, and let them prevent competitors from entering the market or expand their business, or just sell the stuff again for a higher price.

==> 
Once again:
The intention of the proposal is fine, there will be some kind of IPv4 space market, legally or not. We better have a good, global policy for that scenario.
BUT, i doubt that any proposal that wants to do away with the needs-based approach will stand a chance in hell to get pass the community.
There are too many good reasons not to change that. 


> It should also be obvious that the market for these addresses should be global, not regional.
> 

Correct again, no objections.

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards

Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]
Senior System- & Network Architect