Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>]

Hi Terence,

On 18/03/2009 7:48, "Terence Zhang Yinghao" <zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn> wrote:

[...]

> a transfer policy implicitly recognizes a market
> of tranfer and attaches a potential 'value' to IP addresses,

Is the problem that the value is recognised or that the value exists? I
expect the value exists whether we recognise it or not. What are the
consequences to ignoring it?

> which may attract some businesses to apply for more IP addresses
> than their actual need, there for speed up the IPv4 addresses
> consumption. 

I am sure that this already happens. I expect that the APNIC and NIR staff
evaluating requests for IPv4 address space are experienced at looking for a
factual justification for a request.

[...]

> More to the point, I feel that policies deal with transfer
> will be easily involved with financial and even legal issues,
> and to address those issues may be very complex.

Do those financial and legal issues go away if the implicit value of IPv4
addresses is not recognised in APNIC policy? I suspect you just trade one
set of financial and legal issues for another.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda