Michele, John, This revisits the Google fiber thread of last February. At the time I wrote:
... However, if there is a possible action item it is to consider whether the allocation of scarce resources, specifically IPv4 assets, either those remaining for allocation or those recovered for reallocation or those tendered for transfer as "assets" or "rights", is, consistent with the public interest, determined only by the capitalization of applications for (re)allocation. ...
There are those in ARIN who argue that "the market" is a better allocator than "the public interest", and so are opposed to the continued use of needs based justification for allocation. Similar expressions of preference for "the market" and aversion for "the public interest" exist within other RIRs. Milton Meuller frequently makes this point in a variety of venues, now the ARIN Advisory Council, as do several others, some associated with "address block" sales/lease broker businesses. Has anything changed from when last we communicated via na-discuss? John, assuming I understood you correctly then, and frequently previously, are you are of the view that no advice should be offered to the Corporation by the At Large Advisory Committee or any of its regional constituents on the necessity for retaining the public interest as informing allocation policy because ICANN should not attempt to influence NRO and its RIR member allocation policies? Michele, do you hold the view that fixing an error within RIPE's process must be uninformed by external comment on the public interest issues in the stewardship of unique endpoint identifiers? If so, would you then view the stewardship of address blocks outside of RIPE's responsibility something which, necessarily, RIPE's process, while fixing such an error, must be uninformed by? With respect to both of you I continue to suggest that it is within the responsibility of the At Large bylaws entity to advise not just on unique endpoint identifier policy arising from the GNSO, but also from the ASO, from the point of view that there are public interests in the coordination of globally unique endpoint identifiers, and that this advisory responsibility can be met as disinterestedly (that is, fully informed of the issues, not fully engaged in the process) as the Board itself when it acts from time to time on the advice it is offered. In simple terms, for others not acquainted with the problem, the advice "Selling the last IPv4 block to the highest bidding spammer is not consistent with the public interest." could be offered to the ICANN Board. I make no claims to the utility of the Board's action upon the receipt of such advice. However, it seems likely that the Board will _not_ consider advice _not_ offered when considering the issue. Is silence on the question, even when issue creep and turf issues are granted, in the public interest? Regards to you both, Eric