[members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:23PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote:
>this is still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world
>where IPv4s become a financial asset, and can be used for financial
>gain between LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership

This should be resisted as much as possible. If IPv4 becomes a
tradeable commodity and hence a vauable asset, two things will
inevitably happen:

- IPv4 holders will resist ipv6 transition as it would devalue their
   expensive asset. 
- Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate
   more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access 
   to which they control.

The "ipv4 market" may happen regardless, but per-address charging by
the NCC would be perceived as lending credence to the idea of
"ipv4-as-an-asset" 


>policies which would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year.

Prima facie, this sounds like a good idea but would yet again give an
advantage to large resource holders (who can probably easily afford any
levy the NCC might throw at them) while excluding startups and small
enterprises. 
(Possible workaround: disproportionally massive fees for large
allocations)

As a general aside, the Community and the NCC should evaluate all
policies and actions primarily on their consequences for ipv6 
transition at this point in time.

rgds,
Sascha Luck