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

> 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.

Christina,

You're not proposing much of an alternative here, other than hoping that 
things are just going to sort-of carry on the way they always have.  It 
would be nice to believe that this was going to happen, but personally, I 
don't view this as a realistic potential future.

ETNO is correct in identifying that a market based addressing approach will 
attract lots of attention from forces which are - to be frank - unwanted 
and largely unhelpful.  However, it must also be realised that an IP 
address market already exists where you can buy and sell IPv4 address 
space.  And in a world where there is no longer a free supply of nearly 
zero-cost address space, this market will take off at high speed, 
regardless of whether or not the RIRs choose to engage in it.

If they choose not to, I would argue that the effects on the marketplace 
will be significantly worse than if they choose to join and continue to 
play their part as registrars of data.  Chaos is the most likely outcome if 
they are not given a mandate to be involved; RIRs will not have the 
community mandate to ensure that their databases of address holders 
continue to correspond with the ultimate users of the address space.  This 
will lead to significant problems in many areas, not least technical and 
legal.  Unless the RIRs are allowed to adapt to the de-facto methods of 
managing address space, they will become an irrelevant part of ipv4 address 
management, and we will see significantly more regulatory, political and 
legal interest being expressed than if they are given a mandate to 
facilitate address transfer.

I don't think that there are very many people who really want an address 
space market; however, given the circumstances, it would seem to me and 
many others that it is the least bad of a small number of problematic ways 
of dealing with a severe constriction of IPv4 address space supply.

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

Christina, your email above has stated ETNO's position but nothing more. 
However, it is clear that ETNO has debated this issue in some depth.  It 
would be helpful to this process if we could understand your reasoning 
more.  In the interests of helping people in the RIPE community to 
understand the ETNO position, would it be possible for you to give details 
about why you have taken this position?

Nick

-- 
Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations      | Tel: +353 1 6169698
3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick at inex.ie