[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

denis walker wrote on 08/12/2021 17:43:
> I would suggest that the free pool of IPv4 that the RIPE NCC has from
> time to time should only be used to allow new startups to enter the
> business. Transfers on these new startup blocks should not be allowed,
> ever.

What your suggestion does is acknowledge that ipv4 address space has 
asset value.  Financial value of an asset is measured either in terms of 
capital value (probably non-depreciable in the case of ipv4), or as an 
operational cost.

If there's no ability to transfer the objects out of the holding 
company, then a block of ipv4 addresses changes from a non-depreciable 
fixture to an operational cost for using an asset for as long as the 
fees are paid, i.e. a rental arrangement.  Selling the holding company 
is straightforward.

In other words, what you're effectively proposing is that the RIPE NCC 
enters the ipv4 address rental market, and competes with existing market 
operators, with no real protection against address transfers.

This may not be what you or other people intend to suggest, or want, but 
it is the practical outcome.

Nick