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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf