prop-62 tries to give one suggestion as to what we should do with this "precious" last /8 that APNIC will receive if prop-55 is approved. I'm sure other folks will come up with other ideas, and I'm sure some folks will be quite happy with the first come first served that we have now.
And the problem is that in attempting to introduce a new distribution system that performs some form of rationing we need to look at the effects of rationing. Rationing tends to be a highly ineffectual distribution system - the goods remain 'cheap' but they are scarce. Rationing encourages hoarding as a natural reaction from the consumer. Rationing tends to encourage secondary markets where the same goods are priced according to their scarcity value. Because of the effects of hoarding, the secondary markets tend to operate at a level of scarcity premium far in excess of the actual relative scarcity level. Another approach is to perform discriminatory distribution, where the goods are available only on a selective basis to certain parties who qualify, and not to others. In this case the issue is that those with the greatest need, expressable as 'ability to pay' may not be the same as those who receive the goods. Two problems are overtly apparent with such a system. By selectively meeting the needs of some consumers and not others you are making social policies - or in this context you are making industry policies. I have my doubts that this group is the appropriate group to determine such policies and implement them through address distribution practices - conventionally this is undertaken at a national level through legislatures and implemented through regulation. Secondly the practice tends to encourage secondary markets where the same goods are priced according to their scarcity value, and again the secondary markets operate at a distorted price level for much the same reasons as the rationing scheme. Perhaps the issue here is one of illustrating that no matter how we attempt to impose rationing or selective distribution of this "final /8" as proposed in prop-055 we encounter these issues. There is an argument drawn from economic theory that no form of rationing or discriminatory distribution is efficient in terms of the outcomes of such a distribution function. Thisleads to the corollary that while reserving this last /8 in prop-055 feels emotionally like a good thing to do in order
to provide some form of "safeguard" against some unspecified future event, the problem is that we really are finding it difficult to augment this emotional thought with a rational and sensible means of actually using this resource effectively that avoids the outcomes referred to above. regards, Geoff