[governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance

[McTim]

HI jeannette,

On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
> Hi McTim, please do once your are finished with the rhinos.

Several months ago, Andrew Alston  from the South African Research and
Education Network (called TENET) made this policy proposal:

http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-003-draft-02.htm

NB: TENET gave back a large amount of legacy space via AfriNIC several
years ago, thus setting a precedent whereby legacy adressess can be
returned to an RIR, which is an interesting aside, but not germaine to
this discussion.

Now Andrew thinks we should get rid of v4 ASAP and all move to v6, and
his network is fully v6 AFAIK, and kudos to TENET for being a v6
pioneer, but I do not support his proposal ( I support the
Soft-Landing Policy that recently gained consensus after several years
of discussion and revision).  However, if the AfriNIC community does
support it (and they haven't so far) I would suggest that it be
changed so that in addition to the 100% extra increase in the LIR fee
to cater for out of region membership, I would say that they should
pay as a "capital levy"

<begin Dr. Evil voice>

One Million Dollars

</end Dr Evil voice>

If such a levy raised sufficient resources, it would allow an
endowment to be set up to support the NIC indefinitely (not that the
BoD of the NIC would go for such a scheme),  it's just an idea that
springs to mind in case this policy looks like it might move forward.

In any case, we have a number of options ranging from passing this
policy as written to amending it, to rejecting it outright, etc, etc.

So far, none of the RIR communities has given a green light to IP
address "monetisation" as IGP seems to advocate.

Most observers of this potential "market" seem to think it would be
very short lived, since it would be cheaper for network operators to
move to IPv6.

The latest comment on the CircleID blog says:

"Is this a case of some interested parties trying to make as much
noise a possible so as to keep a possible PONZI scheme working?"

I'm not sure I would call it that per se, but the fact that ICANN has
the "deep pockets" in this arena AND the proposal floated by at least
on of the nascent companies to ICANN:

http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accreditation-policy-31mar11-en.pdf

Seems to suggest that ICANN may be the forum where this is played out,
at least in part.

If ICANN says "no" to this kind of proposal, I'm sure there are some
lawyers out there who may be eager to make money by suing ICANN on the
grounds that they are stopping companies from making money from IP
address sales or post-registration services.

Would IGP support a registry/registrar model for IP address
distribution?  What would be the public interest there?  It certainly
wouldn't make Internet connectivity any cheaper for consumers,
wouldn't make using WHOIS any easier or more accurate.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t