[snip] on that note, there IS a "proposal" sent to ICANN (altho not via normal channels) to create "IP address registrars" AND make them subject to the same kind of rules that domain registrars must follow:
http://icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accreditat...
Not sent via normal channels, as they don't think they will get a fair hearing from the ASO:
http://icann.org/en/correspondence/holtzman-to-jeffrey-02mar11-en.pdf
I imagine At-Large might want to weigh in on this at some point?
My view, having followed this on the ARIN-PPML list from its inception, is that the substance of this "proposal" is not in the public interest, nor is the process pursued by claimed by its advocates, correctly defined as "getting a fair hearing". Like myself, McTim (<dogwallah@gmail.com>) has commented on the thread begun by a "free market, anti-government, anti-pseudo-government" poster Mike Burns (<mike@nationwideinc.com>), who in addition to advocacy of this particular issue for frankly ideological reasons, imagines that ICANN is the "higher authority" to which some appeal can be made to overturn the policies of the regional address registries. Of course, the Depository correspondence (David Olive et seq.) does not necessarily share Mr. Burns' motivation, as the pecuniary interest of Depository in acquiring a franchise for address registry services is self-evident. Broadly, Burns, and Depository, seek to replicate the structure of the domain names market in v4 addresses. In my view, this is not a desirable transformation of the management of v4 addresses, which despite significant self-interest advocacy retains "good stewardship" properties absent in almost all* of the domain names market. Eric * The .cat, .coop and .museum name space operators, and perhaps others, and the respective primary registrars exhibit "good stewardship".