[address-policy-wg] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Thu Oct 23 15:39:07 CEST 2008
Thank you for your comments, Michael. My replies inline below: ----- Original Message ----- From: <michael.dillon at bt.com> To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:56 PM Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space > > > 1. Introducing a *recurrent annual* cost-element to IPv4 > > addresses, the reason behind it being: making v6 cheaper to > > run than v4. This could be a small cost to start with, > > increasing significantly but steadily along a scale for the > > next few years. > > And what would RIPE do with all of this extra money? If there > is no good reason to spend this money, then many LIRs will > simply not pay the fees and instead charge RIPE with > violation of section 6 of the Dutch Competition Act. It was explained later in my message: IPv6 transfer fund. > > > If we do not make IPv6 more interesting financially, we risk > > failure to transit smoothly. > > I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe this. > So let's agree to disagree on this point. :-) > > I am trying to look for a solution which will ease the shock > > by instead smoothly raising prices. > > Shocks are not necessarily bad because they make people act > instead of sitting on their hands. Except when what hangs in the balance is the actual ability of an organisation in running IP numbering space. Opponents to the self-governance model might use this "shock" to wedge control out of all the RIRs and replace it with a governmental governance model; bureaucratic, run by public servants, stifling any kind of innovation, etc. Do we really want that? > > > I don't believe in self-regulation by the market - it opens > > itself to serious abuse, in the same way Wall Street bankers > > abused the system and look where this led us? > > Then you don't believe in RIPE. Maybe you should be talking > to the European Commission instead of us. I chose my words very carefully, Michael. I did not use the term "community" but used the term "market". The "market" does not automatically follow RIPE bylaws whilst the "community" does. The "market" is purely reactive whilst all I am asking for, is for the "community" to be proactive. Warm regards, Olivier
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]