[102573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Geoff Huston)
Tue Feb 19 19:09:47 2008
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:06:03 +1100
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>, Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <F7A951E8-3DB8-49C4-A71D-69A8CA7E6FB1@virtualized.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
David Conrad wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> On Feb 18, 2008, at 11:33 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>> This is a strong argument for regulation of the market. A regulated
>>> market could provide liquidity needed by those who would otherwise
>>> find <unregulated> means to accomplish their ends (such as making
>>> private deals that are perhaps undetectable).
>>
>> I have no problem with regulating markets -- I tend to think they work
>> better that way.
>
> Given the decentralized nature of the Internet and the lack of a single
> legal/policy regime that covers it, the challenge is in identifying
> viable candidates for the regulator.
That is a big challenge in this space, considering that there is no
particular national alignment in the address structure.
The approach in the proposals so far is to attempt to create a framework
around recognition of market-based outcomes that act as implicit
constraints on the market. The proposals so far for recognition of
address transfers in ARIN, RIPE and APNIC all attempt to define a class
of transactions that would be regarded as eligible for entering in
their respective address registries. That said, they each propose a
different set of constraints!
Geoff
