[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

David

We might have a rapid stalemate here because there is not much more I can 
add, except to say that I disagree, but I'll give it a go.

> > For a trading exchange
> > and rival database to develop there needs to be sufficient certainty 
> > in
> > the transfer between two LIRs to enable a contractual agreement to be
> > constructed.
> 
> No.  For a rival database to develop (and be useful), there needs to 
> be sufficient certainty that the transfer between two LIRs is recorded 
> and published.  What happens between the two parties to result in that 
> transfer is irrelevant to this.

Let me give you an example, constructed perhaps, but hopefully 
illustrative.  I set up an address exchange and say to people "advertise 
your spare addresses here and I'll take a commission on all sales"  I 
build a database to support it, an automated bidding tool and anonymised 
listings of the addresses some how. 

So now people are trading addresses and everything is working smoothly, 
but we will still have all this hassle of updating the RIPE NCC database 
for each trade.

To make life easier I offer to do it for you.  But rather than ask for 
your certs why not just transfer the addresses over to me when you want to 
sell them and I can then do the transfer after the sale.  But I don't just 
do that every time, rather I say to the buyer, "it will be an extra 100 
euros if you want the RIPE NCC database updated".  They ask me is that OK 
and point to the contract they have saying, "look here is a proper legal 
contract enforceable in law, your trade is registered and viewable in my 
database (and I am the exchange after all), RIPE NCC is just an irrelevant 
formality".

And yes I will get away with it because most people will look at the 
contract and say "that's good enough for me" and RIPE NCC will have to 
deal with my lawyers if they want to challenge it.

> 
> > The current policy does not allow sufficient certainty
> > because it does not allow transfers except in the extreme case of 
> > one LIR
> > buying another LIR.
> 
> Indeed.  And 2007-08 is proposing a way to allow RIPE-NCC to allow 
> certainty in other forms of transfer.  If they do not, I am curious 
> why you believe someone else won't.

It is not "allowing RIPE NCC a way to allow certainty" it is simply 
allowing certainty, whether or not RIPE NCC is involved.

Jay