On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 13:57 -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> Tom,
>
> On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
> > Perhaps Jay is like me, trying to highlight some
possible
> > consequences that the "governed" might
wish to consider before
> > consenting to go down this particular one-way
street.
>
> The point is, we've already gone down the one-way
street. The
> question is whether or not we allow the RIRs to help
drive or get run
> over.
>
The process of governing virtually free handouts from a
resource pool
and the regulation of trade in resources controlled by
others are
incompatible activities. 2007-08, unless it is backed by
regulatory
rules and means to enforce those, goes a long way towards
reducing the
NCC to nothing more than a rdns+whois-operator wrt IPv4.
RIR's policies
have so far been successful because good behaviour has been
rewarded
with ample supply of address-resources. Pointing fingers
will not make a
difference once we're out of carrots.
I belive 2007-08 on its own is pointless. If there is a
market there
will also be someone trying to regulate it. If the RIRs want
their
policies to remain relevant they will have to play the game.
For
_example_:
- Restrict buyers
- Need based
- No hoarding (first use what you have)
- Require registered LIRs to filter disputed prefixes
It will cost a lot of blood, sweat, tears and won't come
cheap. The NCC
may also end up having more lawyers than hostmasters, but
regulation
_is_ a completely different ballgame.
OTOH, if we drop the ball, who do we expect to pick it up?
//per
|
