Re: Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space

Oliver and all,

  You make some good points in your remarks below.  But what
is also evident is that the RIR's started too late with too little
resources of all sorts to properly promote IPv6.  I am not a big fan
of IPv6 but I also have no objection to it either.  What RIR's and
to a very great extent, ICANN has refused over and over again to
recognize properly is that the customer is king.  What they want
better be what they get lest they go elsewhere.  It recently seems
to me much to my surprise IPv8 is becoming that eleswhere.  Good
for me and others that against the status quo desired IPv8 for many
reasons over IPv6, but bad for the than and still now to a degree,
insiders.  Oh well...

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> my reply inline below
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Hilliard" <[email protected]>
> To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
>
> [...]
>
> > Your suggestion boils down to: let's create a tax on IPv4 to help introduce
> > IPv6.  In other words, you are creating an invented demand proposition, and
> > we all know how well those work in practice (cf. the ISO protocol debacle).
> >  You're also suggesting that a non-governmental body engage in the process
> > of tax collection, and we also know how well that works in practice (cf.
> > the InterNIC $50pa domain name debacle).
> >
>
> I agree and that's why I am proposing a study of this. If we can study this and find the
> best solution, we can learn from previous mistakes & debacles.
>
> > The doom that you are talking about will happen, and that is a good thing.
> >
> > It is a good thing because the only way to get people to change from IPv4
> > to IPv6 is to let them feel the pain of running their IPv4 services on
> > empty for long enough.  I've been in ISPs where they have lived in
> > self-imposed NAT worlds with static addressing.  They changed to public
> > addressing purely for business reasons.  The same will happen for ipv4 and
> > ipv6.
>
> Pain is not good, especially when it makes users unhappy.
>
> My biggest concern is actually not the rising costs spiralling out of control. It is not
> the abruptness with which we'll have to switch from v4 to v6. No, my biggest concern is
> that the self-governance model which has been set-up so far and which, in my opinion, is
> the most democratic bottom up of models on offer, perhaps not perfect, but improving year
> on year, with hundreds, no, actually thousands of individuals like you and I having a
> voice about the Internet's future, reduced to NIL.
>
> The whole system, ICANN, RIRs etc. has been structured and has progressed naturally in a
> way to make the Internet as stable as possible. The flipside of the coin is that it is not
> well geared for rapid change. Each and every process requires consensus, something that
> takes time; something that explores many avenues; something that requires discussion &
> meeting people and convincing. The system's greatest asset is actually its greatest
> liability with regards to IPv6.
> If enough stakeholders are fed-up with the inability of the current system to rise to the
> challenge of providing enough addressing to keep the "Internet for everyone", we are
> likely to see a scenario that's completely different.
>
> Because I have experienced the alternative system first-hand, I really hope that we will
> not be put in this position.
> Their track record speaks for itself:
>
> - the people that brought you X400 email. Nightmare No.1. I remember pulling my hair out
> when using it, and yet...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.400
>
> - the people who are pushing for another Alternative root for "The Internet of things"
> http://www.muniwireless.com/2008/10/09/europe-seeks-to-promote-the-internet-of-things/
>
> - the people who promoted the HADOPI law
> http://www.isoc-ecc.org/docs/ipr2008/Press_Release_5sept08_ISOC.pdf
>
> - The people in the USG who think that... well you know already
> - The people in the Telcos who are reminiscent of the good old days of plain old telephone
> service and how you could "rape" a client charging any amount for a low quality phone call
> etc.
>
> I am not saying that they are all bad, but I am saying that their track record is such
> that some elements in those organisations might make the wrong choice due to their lack of
> understanding in the matter.
> There are plenty of stakeholders waiting in the sidelines, hoping that the whole
> self-governance model will fail. Trust me, they will use *any* ammo they can, and IPv4 to
> v6 transition pain is something they'll *love* to make use of.
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D
> Global Information Highway Ltd
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
[email protected]
My Phone: 214-244-4827

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6