> 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. Ned (*) 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf