In the efforts to promote the public interest over that of monied interests in Internet Governance few issues are clear cut. One issue that has recently been discussed is that of requiring a “needs assessment” when transferring IP addresss blocks from one organisation to another (in the same or different RIR regions) or indeed when requesting IP resources from your friendly RIR.

IP address space is a finite public resource. Traditionally, folk who need IP addresses fill in a simple form documenting how current addresses are used and explaining how the requested IPs will be used. It’s a simple process that takes a few minutes to complete, and even less time to process. Having been a Hostmaster at one of the RIRs, I have some experience in this area. Back in the very early days of the IANA, requirements were even more simple and many organisations got lots more IPs than they could actually use due to the classfull nature of addressing at the time. These early Allocations are often called “legacy space”, as they were made prior to the formation of the RIR system as we know it.

There seems to be a vocal minority clamoring for the removal of this needs requirement in some of the RIR regions, some of whom are undoubtedly hoping to profit from the sale of IP addresses, while others seem to be guided by free-market philosophies. Unfortunately, neither motivation seems to advance the public interest in IP address distribution, despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

If organisations were allowed to obtain IP blocks from the RIRs (or from other companies) without first demonstrating that they needed them, the Internet would have run out of IPv4 long ago. This would obviously not have been in the public interest, as Internet growth would have stagnated.

Recently, we have seen the Internetgovernanceproject blogging about this issue and they talk about the needs requirement as a “barrier to trade”. While this may be the case, a much bigger and more damaging barrier to would be erected if folk were allowed to flog their IP resources (legacy or not) to the highest bidder without any regard for Internet resource stewardship. In the theoretical case that IGP raises, where Asian companies looking for more addresses than they think they can get from their RIR are eyeing legacy IP blocks. IGP seems to think that such organisation should be able to buy legacy blocks without demonstrating that they actually need these resources. In other words, the companies who have the most cash “wins”, which is not a philosophy normally associated with public interest outcomes. Many in the RIR policy communities are concerned that this will lead to hoarding and speculation, driving up the cost of doing business for all while enriching the few.

The current RIR system works incredibly well. It is the most respected part of the ICANN system in terms of openness, transparency and true bottom uppity-ness. Normally, IGP decries the heavy influence in ICANN processes by monied interests, but in this case, they seem to be cheerleading for the monied interests due to some deep seated Ayn Rand-ian laissez faire-ness. Inexplicable really, but I digress.

Now that we are faced with the impending run out of IPv4, several RIR policy communities are placing greater restrictions on allocation and assignments as a natural reaction the coming shortage. For example, in the AfriNIC region, consensus was reached at the last AfriNIC meeting on a “Soft Landing” policy, which is now in Last Call. Amongst other things, this policy specifically states that resources allocated to the AfriNIC region are meant to be used in the region, thus precluding inter-region transfers.

Currently the APNIC community is in the process of restoring the justification of need for transfers, which was relaxed just last year.

Asking folk why they need a certain number of addresses has worked to prevent hoarding and speculation of Internet resources for many years. It is even more important now that we are running low on the supply side of IPv4. RIR policies are set by groups of people working together to reach consensus positions. Asking that we allow the “Invisible Hand” to determine policies going forward is not responsible stewardship, it’s just crass commercialism.