Although we may have different view, may be just defferent explanation ,
I think we have the same concern: 'safeguard that REALLY works',
which should be an integrated part of the proposal.
Hello Terence,
While I do understand your worries, I must comment agasint
some of your opinions. Please exucse me for my rudeness.
of tranfer and attaches a potential 'value' to IP addresses,
which may attract some businesses to apply for more IP addresses
than their actual need, there for speed up the IPv4 addresses
consumption.
Unfortunately, the coundown of /8's is recognized by many
and the implicit value is already rising. That's what I feel
as a member of an NIR. I would like to know what other NIR
members feel.
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.
I think the Internet is already full of financial and legal issues
today. Its a part of daily life in an ISP. Heck! We pay money to JPNIC
yearly, and that's already a financial and legal issue itself!
How about domains? Isn't it a miracle that its still working? :-)
What we need to focus on now, (let me borrow Skeeve's words here) is safeguard
that REALLY works, or think really works. We also need to think about
deployment of technological ways of ensuring an IP address integrity as well
(just as Randy noted in a previous mail).
we should encourage
getting address through regular channel and returning address
to RIR when it's no longer in use.
There's still time to work on this, but
if encouraging were to make things dramatically better,
we woudn't be talking about prop-050 right now.
Regards,
Seiichi
