[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Christina,

First of all, I owe you an apology for the last paragraph of my email to
this list on May 26th of this year.  This email was written in some haste
and I didn't read EC097 thoroughly before posting it.

Secondly, there is no need to be sorry to contribute to this discussion.
This is an open forum and your contributions are welcome.  Indeed, as it's
an open forum on internet policy, it is quite normal to see a certain
quantity of discussion which could be loosely described as peanut-gallery
contribution. Probably it is more useful to ignore this rather get annoyed
by it.

I'm also glad to see that ETNO will be contributing their thoughts to v3 of
this policy proposal.  In doing so, could I suggest that you consider the
following issues:

1. There is already an IPv4 address trading market.  2007-08 does not
propose to create this; merely to regulate it and in doing so, to attempt
to bring the bring the behind-the-scenes horse-trading which you describe
in 3.2 of EC097 out into the open a little more.  I cannot see how it is
useful to state that there shouldn't be a market in future when there is
serious demand for IPv4 address space, when such a market already exists.

2. I don't believe for a moment in the future world of RIR ipv4 address
exhaustion, that if a shortage of IPv4 addresses were to get in the way of
new customer acquisition for any ETNO member, they would stay from an IPv4
address market.  Regardless of individual ETNO members' contributions to
EC097 right now, if any one of them were to seriously in future suggest
that their employers refuse to acquire new IPv4 addresses through whatever
legitimate means possible (whether through some variant of 2007-08, a grey
market, ISP skeletons, or whatever), then the decision power to acquire new
IP address space in order to facilitate the continued growth of the company
will be taken away from any address market nay-sayers and moved elsewhere
in the business to whatever level is required to override the "no markets"
policy - whether that level be a regular Business Development unit within
the company or right up to board level.

This is an important point, so let's restate it: if ETNO thinks that the
current "no markets" principle is going to override its members' future
business continuity, then ETNO is deluding itself.

Nick Hilliard