[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments

Dear colleagues

ETNO's recently submitted a contribution, titled "IP Addressing in a
post IPv4 World-Principles", to the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list
(available also to the ETNO web site,
http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=2058). This contribution provides
an analysis on why, according to ETNO Members, any emerging marketplace
should not determine IPv4 address exhaustion management. 

Quoting some basic arguments from the abovementioned contribution, ETNO
believes that it is the successful bottom-up processes that keep the
Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding
intervention or new models of governmental control and therefore it is
the Internet community that should take all the appropriate measures in
order to adhere to the current governance model. Facilitating a market
based on the principle that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP
address would engage competition authorities, policymakers and will
raise legal issues. This should be carefully considered before
introducing policies that will facilitate a market. Therefore, ETNO has
some strong concerns regarding the possible impacts of the introduction
of a transfer option or an open market option. This does not mean that
ETNO fails to recognise the possibility that future transactions that
will involve transfers of IP addresses between entities for profit. It
means that internet community will need to carefully consider the
implications of assisting such a process, taking as a starting point
that the Internet community wants to preserve the current internet
governance bottom-up processes. If a market emerges, future developments
relating to IPv4 addresses must not undermine the viability of the
Internet.

Therefore based on the above, ETNO members could not support the 2007-08
Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources. 

Christina Kelaidi
ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG.