Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit

[John Curran <jcurran () mail com>]

At 11:00 AM -0800 2/19/08, David Conrad wrote:
> The simple reality is that businesses who require IPv4 addresses to continue operations will do what is necessary to 
> obtain them, regardless of what an informational document published over a decade ago or informal agreements with 
> individuals sadly passed away might say.  ARIN and the other RIRs can continue to try to ignore that reality, but the 
> almost certain end state of that action is to make ARIN and the other RIRs irrelevant in IPv4 registration management 
> (who would be relevant is left to the reader as an exercise).

David -

I imagine that there are many potential outcomes.  For example, 
in a world where ICANN/IANA (who seems to very much want to
be in charge of all this) actually did IP block revocation of unused
blocks per RFC2050, we'd likely not be having any discussion of a
relaxed transfer policy, as a result of the complete lack of need.

Would the ISP community support adherence to RFC 2050 and
route accordingly?  It certainly has to date, and nearly every RIR
policy has been build accordingly.  It might result in some legal
work, but that's a small price to pay to further operational stability
of the Internet.

/John

p.s.  ICANN seems to have no problem with asserting the
       informal DNS agreements from the same time period
       (with entire teams of lawyers) so maybe we just need
       to wait until they're free to pay attention to IP resources?
       Will that be soon?