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

[Lee W McKnight]

McTim,

All valid points.

Except I would not think of IPv4 addresses held by African entities as 'deepest pockets.'

So if an incidental byproduct of IPv4 scarcity is prices paid well above costs to - Africa - well, that might be a transfer of value CSers would be sympathetic to.

But larger issue is that not addressing a market as a market, can lead to lower consumer welfare; and specifically, opens door to incentives for - private markets.  Which is another way of saying, assume bakshish.

Classic example is current mess in India where government - inefficiencies - have everyone now 'shocked!' that mobile operators - really want spectrum to provide services to their paying customers. Who could have guessed?

Anyway, better an open market than one in which we are later 'shocked' to learn that money changed hands along with IPv4 addresses.

Lee
________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:14 AM
To: Lee W McKnight
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance

Lee,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> McTim,
>
> Following on with Milton, markets allocate scarce resources most of the time.

Correct, and I am a big fan of markets in general, especially in an
Internet context.  The desire for people to find stuff they need and
want  has contributed greatly to Internet growth.

However, markets are not appropriate in all situations.  For example,
human trafficking and derivatives based on toxic mortgages.  NB: I am
NOT comparing those situations to the IP address distribution arena,
comparing them would be silly, its just to make the point that there
are some things which should not be subject to what is called the
"free market"

In any case, if you define a "market" as a place to go when you need
something, then its clear there has ALWAYS been a "market" for
Internet numbering resources.  Back in the day, before the network was
commercialised you would go to the IANA.

After commercialisation, you would get it from your upstream (the vast
majority of Internet users get their IP address space from their
providers, I'm guessing that 9x% of the "market need"  is satisfied by
this channel.

It's only if you are a large (for the most part) corporate or ISP that
you go to your RIR to satisfy your IP addressing needs.


>
> IP numbers may have no intrinsic value.
>
> So what, the right to use 'fresh' IPv4, like spectrum in a national market - has a value independent of the 'price' of  bits.

That seems to be about right, however, a "right to use"  is not the
same as a "right to sell or own".  The general rule, even in legacy
assignments is that you are allocated/assigned numbering resources for
a specific purpose or purposes.  If you don't need them for those
reasons, you have to give them back.


>
> Milton's suggestion to hold and wait for market forces to work their magic is the way to play imho; but note I am not a licensed broker/dealer

I don't see this as being in the public interest, nor do I think that
"deepest pockets wins" is a position that we as a CS Caucus should
espouse.


--
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