[address-policy-wg] In favor of 2012-01

> 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 IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means.
For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story.

Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can be governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a free pool) or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making trades among themselves) or some combination of both. All that matters is which method is more efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. Leave your religious beliefs behind.

But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. These transfers should be made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for holding periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of religious faith in some circles, but the idea that RIR staff can accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and technical development, is just wrong. Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests. Let the price system sort out who really needs what.

It should also be obvious that the market for these addresses should be global, not regional.

Thus, I support proposed policy 2012-01, my only reservation being that the policy specifies that "Where the recipient is in another region, the conditions on the recipient as defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the time of the transfer will apply." In this blog post I raised some issues with that and hope that the authors of the policy would respond. 
http://www.internetgovernance.org/ 

Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
http://blog.internetgovernance.org