Thank you for your comments, Michael. My replies inline below: ----- Original Message ----- From: <michael.dillon@bt.com> To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:56 PM Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
1. Introducing a *recurrent annual* cost-element to IPv4 addresses, the reason behind it being: making v6 cheaper to run than v4. This could be a small cost to start with, increasing significantly but steadily along a scale for the next few years.
And what would RIPE do with all of this extra money? If there is no good reason to spend this money, then many LIRs will simply not pay the fees and instead charge RIPE with violation of section 6 of the Dutch Competition Act.
It was explained later in my message: IPv6 transfer fund.
If we do not make IPv6 more interesting financially, we risk failure to transit smoothly.
I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe this.
So let's agree to disagree on this point. :-)
I am trying to look for a solution which will ease the shock by instead smoothly raising prices.
Shocks are not necessarily bad because they make people act instead of sitting on their hands.
Except when what hangs in the balance is the actual ability of an organisation in running IP numbering space. Opponents to the self-governance model might use this "shock" to wedge control out of all the RIRs and replace it with a governmental governance model; bureaucratic, run by public servants, stifling any kind of innovation, etc. Do we really want that?
I don't believe in self-regulation by the market - it opens itself to serious abuse, in the same way Wall Street bankers abused the system and look where this led us?
Then you don't believe in RIPE. Maybe you should be talking to the European Commission instead of us.
I chose my words very carefully, Michael. I did not use the term "community" but used the term "market". The "market" does not automatically follow RIPE bylaws whilst the "community" does. The "market" is purely reactive whilst all I am asking for, is for the "community" to be proactive. Warm regards, Olivier