On Jun 5, 2013, at 8:26 AM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
> The feeling is that bureaucratic needs assessments introduce significant
> friction into the transfer process, making it more difficult for addresses to
> shift from people with a surplus to people who actually need them. It is the
> current system that is characterized by hoarding, not a freer market.
The assets not being fungible is a defense mechanism against speculation.
I have not seen adequate economics modeling by either side of this debate
suggesting what the impact would be on various scenarios, such as allowing open
(no needs based) compensated transfer, allowing specifically openly compensated
transfers with needs basis; price controls vs unregulated open market private
transactions vs some variation on a regulated exchange with posted
transactions, etc.
The asset pool is both fixed ( fixed address space that is practically finite )
and variable ( if commoditized, under some scenarios, some organizations will
voluntarily conserve public space usage in order to sell excess inventory). It
has high initial perceived value but that is likely to fall as IPv6 adoption
becomes nearly universal.
We've walked out on a ledge here without looking closely at the paths. Where
is Hal Varian when we need him? We should be handing this to economics grad
students as project suggestions or thesis projects, etc.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
