On 06/11/2007, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
"ensure that a uniform policy is adopted by all RIRs"
This hasn't been a problem in the past. The details of implementation differ, but the RIR's have all done a good job of requiring justification for IP allocations and handing out IP space in appropriately sized chunks.
I'm worried that for some regions the "TCO" to access scarce IPv4 space may be higher than in other regions. So uniform in a sense of geographic fairness, not in the sense of same policy for all.
"reserve a pool of IPv4 addresses for future emergency allocation" Emergency
to be decided at ICANN level.
Honestly, ICANN knows a lot less about IP allocation than the RIRs do. I don't think this is a good idea. If ICANN wants to do something useful for the IP address community, turn up the community pressure to renumber and recycle old underused allocations like MIT's 18/8 and Apple's 17/8.
ICANN level means higher level than RIR level. The decision should be from a global body not a regional one. I don't remember my ICANN organisational structure, but I'm sure you know which body would be the most suited for this role. May be the recovered IPv4 space should go into this "emergency" pool, and the allocation of these IPs would come after the normal space is exhausted, so people have time to see how the secondary and underground market behave and have resources to fight it if needed. Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin@gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard