We need to get some real economists involved here and some real lawyers. We
do have some net-savy lawyers on tap, but economists are going to be harder to
find, or rather they are going to be easy to find but not so easy to find good
ones who are not peddling some ideology.
I think getting some real economists involved is an excellent idea. As you say,
ideology-peddlers (of all stripes) need to be avoided, but having some people
who think about this from an economic perspective could be HUGELY beneficial.
Perhaps the folk at the LSE who designed the auction of wireless spectrum for
George Brown could help?
It may not be the right group but it's a place to start.
What I want to know is how we establish the incentives that are necessary to
create the intended outcome.
Exactly. For example, you might do something like make IPv4 allocations
cheaper, or easer to get, or something along those lines, in exchange for
deploying IPv6. (*) Perhaps this pool of addresses would best be saved for
possible use as an incentive...
BTW, I suspect you are correct about about the IPv6 transition not being Pareto
efficient at the present time, but IMO the bigger issue is that it is widely
percieved as not even being Kaldor-Hicks efficient, due in large part to
address space exhaustion being seen as an externality. Of course that will
eventually change, but it still may not drive things in the direction we want,
and even if it does the resulting transition period will be a real mess.
(*) The example was Chris Newman's idea, not mine. And it is just an example -
neither Chris nor I are economists and neither of us are making an actual
proposal for an incentive here.
Ietf mailing list