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

[I've already given my statement - considering that as 'side-track' discussion more or less]

Hi,

> 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.
> 

well, at first, just to state the obvious once more

a) For RIR-managed resources...

...this is basically true. 

b) For pre-RIR resources...

...RIR policies cannot be applied. Anyone can really sell this stuff, they seem to really own those.
But of course this is not covered by this policy then anyways. 
I just want to point out that your assumption is not 100% true right now already :-)
(And there is plenty of this pre-RIR stuff out there)

>> 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/
> 

The question here is if we would like to have a controlled open market or 
an uncontrolled black market.

Any transfer of any RIR resources SHOULD be needs based, following existing policy.

But in a mostly business driven internet, in a mostly marked based economy today, it's really
hard to explain why one shouldn't be able make money out of a scarce resource. 

Since i've stated (here and on multiple occasions throughout the years) that i tend to support non-commercial 
entities' point of view, i would prefer an equal-rights approach, too. 
But i doubt there is room for a global policy supporting this.

Nowadays, i'm thinking more like - screw that, IPv4 is over, get IPv6 in this special case. 
There are working transition technologies by now.

As long as the receiving end still has to show they need the resources like anyone has to today,
i don't care much anymore if there is money involved in the process. 
There is IPv6, let those who are stupid pay the price for being stupid.

>> 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.

The wording of the proposal is bad in general, but what to expect from "marketing guys and girls" :-)
I've already stated my own concerns about that, all this adds up to me not supporting this proposal in this
current form.
But i might not object to the idea in general. Especially inter-RIR transfers should be allowed in general,
without a doubt. But different conditions. (Someone please hit me with a stick if inter-RIR transfers
are already possible by some existing policy i now forgot because no one ever used it. I only remember the 
ERX transfer project right now, which was a one-timer (IMHO), but as usual i may be 100% wrong)

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards

Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]
Senior System- & Network Architect