[address-policy-wg] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space

Thank you for your comments, Michael. My replies inline below:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space


>
> > 1. Introducing a *recurrent annual* cost-element to IPv4
> > addresses, the reason behind it being: making v6 cheaper to
> > run than v4. This could be a small cost to start with,
> > increasing significantly but steadily along a scale for the
> > next few years.
>
> And what would RIPE do with all of this extra money? If there
> is no good reason to spend this money, then many LIRs will
> simply not pay the fees and instead charge RIPE with
> violation of section 6 of the Dutch Competition Act.

It was explained later in my message: IPv6 transfer fund.

>
> > If we do not make IPv6 more interesting financially, we risk
> > failure to transit smoothly.
>
> I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe this.
>

So let's agree to disagree on this point. :-)

> > I am trying to look for a solution which will ease the shock
> > by instead smoothly raising prices.
>
> Shocks are not necessarily bad because they make people act
> instead of sitting on their hands.

Except when what hangs in the balance is the actual ability of an organisation in running
IP numbering space. Opponents to the self-governance model might use this "shock" to wedge
control out of all the RIRs and replace it with a governmental governance model;
bureaucratic, run by public servants, stifling any kind of innovation, etc. Do we really
want that?

>
> > I don't believe in self-regulation by the market - it opens
> > itself to serious abuse, in the same way Wall Street bankers
> > abused the system and look where this led us?
>
> Then you don't believe in RIPE. Maybe you should be talking
> to the European Commission instead of us.

I chose my words very carefully, Michael. I did not use the term "community" but used the
term "market".
The "market" does not automatically follow RIPE bylaws whilst the "community" does.
The "market" is purely reactive whilst all I am asking for, is for the "community" to be
proactive.

Warm regards,

Olivier