Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
On 18/03/2009 7:48, "Terence Zhang Yinghao" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot 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