[address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))

On 04/04/2012 05:03 PM, John Curran wrote:
> region must comply with the community policies, and ask
> that they put a transfer request (agreed to by the seller)
> so that we may transfer the number resources to the new
> registrant.

this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. the problem is not that space is transfered. the problem is that the seller assumes that he has the (absolute) power over it, that it is his own, even if the requirements that lead to the allocation or assignment to him isn't valid anymore.
a transfer (being a redistribution without ripe) is just as well as a redistribution with ripe - if and only if the conditions are identical. auctioning this off corrupts this principle.
actually, talking about a sparse resource, it has to be returned to the pool if it isn't needed anymore.

> In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy
> text may create the impression for some readers that Internet
> number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as
> desired,

for a reallity check i'd suggest to read http://ipv4marketgroup.com/

> but that error is may be unavoidable in any case
> given the circumstances. I do not believe that the use of

if a person gets a wrong idea, this is to be avoided, but i don't see a vital problem here.
if it's erroneously formally put in writing, that'd be a real problem.

regards,

	Chris