On Aug 3, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't see a duty of care here. There is no general obligation in
law to give up an economic interest just to help others.
Rather than allowing IP addresses to be traded, an annual per IP
address use fee could be imposed. This fee could provide the
economic incentive for returning IP addresses not generating revenues
that justify paying the fee. Rather than increasing various
membership fees which tend to benefit larger interests, flat use fees
could be more democratic. Initially setting fees to levels
comparable to current revenues should not be disruptive. Of course
fees would be justified by covering just the expenses related to
services being offered.
When sourcing revenue from either a name or IP address use fee, this
might also cover some services offered by ISOC. These organizations
share duties related to supporting the Internet. As with any
democracy, funding mechanisms potentially impair equity. The goal
would be to find a balance that insures availability of information
and resources needed for interchange and interoperability.
This could be seen as analogous to a TV or radio station who license
their frequencies. License fees are based upon annual costs of
enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and
international activities.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf