Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
> 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?
>>Vaule do exists, but not market, and we should not encourage 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.
>>Do you have evidence when you make that conclusion?
>>FYI. there are about 298 million internet user in China main land,
>>we only have about 181 million IPv4 addresses.
>>Any way, don't divert the discussion to another way.
> 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.
>> I specificly talk about those issues raised in the mailling list regarding
>>the transfer proposal, I also say that to address those issues may be very complex.
>> So I would suggest we only have transfer policy when it's absolutely neccessary.
>> I don't assume those issues will go away.
Regards
Terence Zhang