[AfriNIC-rpd] The "Out of Region Sales for IPv4 Space" Policy Proposal is now Online

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 15, 2011, at 3:43 PM, David Conrad wrote:

> Owen,
> 
> On Feb 15, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> More generally, in a post-IPv4 free pool world, it might be worth deciding what role the registries should have (at least regarding IPv4 address space) and look at policies in that light.
>> I believe that is exactly what I have been doing.
> 
> You're making the implicit assumption that the policy regime that applied when the RIR's primary consideration was the allocation of a limited resource (and hence the drive to conserve that resource) still applies in a world where there is no address space left to allocate.
> 
Not at all. I'm making the assumption that it is better for the community for any addresses that become available
to go to someone who can justify their need according to standards developed by the community is better
than auctioning them off to the highest bidder regardless of need.

Since the community can still continue to change that definition of justified need, even after runout, I don't see
any implicit assumption that the definition will remain the same. I haven't yet seen any reason it should change,
but, I am most certainly not making the assumption you claim I am making as I made no assumption that the
policy regime was static. I've authored too many changes to policy to believe that it is a static inanimate object
rather than a living, breathing, mutating process.

>> I see no reason that transfers to entities that would not have qualified before runout would, in any way, be better than transfers only to recipients that meet policy criteria for receiving add dresses if the RIR had addresses to give.
> 
> An alternative view would be that due to changing circumstances, the primary consideration of the registry should shift to focusing on the accuracy, validity, and comprehensiveness of the registration database since it is likely that there will be increased pressure for folks to abuse that database.
> 
Yes, I'm aware of the alternate view. I would argue that said view amounts to using a perception:
	"increased pressure for folks to abuse that database"

As a mechanism of FUD to support the position of:
	"Since theft is likely, we should legalize theft so that thieves will not hesitate to report it."

I realize you think it is observation of the obvious and we can easily agree to disagree.
I respect your position. I'm in favor of the decriminalization of drugs for similar reasons
because in that case, the collateral damage of the current legal framework is high while
the impact on drug usage appears to be relatively low.

However, I expect that the incidence of invalid transfers will remain relatively low and that
ensuring those sellers that want to operate legitimately are passing their addresses to those
that can most benefit from receiving them without adding an unneeded layer of speculation
and derivatives markets to drive up the cost in between is better policy.

Owen