[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi,

The reason there is such a market for legacy IP space, and the reason new market entrants[1] stockpile space like the good old big players do, is that somehow legacy IP space is considered worthy. Why? Because it is running short. The less we have to give away, the higher the price will be. There will be much more and much higher valued transfers in the future, up to the point where the price is so ridiculously high that shiny not-so-new IPv6 becomes a real business case. 

I want that point to be as soon as possible and get the sh*t done and over with.

Until then, in my opinion, we as a community are making things worse! As Martin said, you can not get serious funding without having a serious growth plan. This includes legacy IP space. A startup is *forced* to play tricks on the policies or to make use of an escrow service or just call the trusted dealer at the east end of the RIPE region. The current loophole is the way we as a community, but also startups in deep need of legacy IP space, can save faces

If we start adding a “more realistic” price tag to legacy IP space, we can redo this every few months, and even in shorter intervals as the market heats up. Let the market figure it out and please, please let us not make a resource that is already short even shorter! Get the stuff out, it may even decrease legacy IP space price tags for a while?[2]

I am always in favor of policies and policy loopholes that lead to a sooner depletion of legacy IP space, so I would very much like this loophole not to be closed. I oppose this proposal. I would also argue for larger allocations if that becomes a new proposal. Martin?


CHeers

Dan


PS: Sorry for the tomatoes in this thread, Elvis, I don’t think you deserved them.

[1] There is so much allocated, unused space stockpiled by the big players. And we want to help market entrants by giving them time instead of space? This is not how the business works. It is all about speed and innovation, not about the ability to enter the market in 5 years from now and find the same market rules as today.

[2] I have no evidence for that, this is just speculation. Maybe Elvis can share some data as he probably has a better view on that market?