On September 8, 2006 at 16:28 fergdawg@netzero.net (Fergie) wrote:
I like how Jack Bates framed it: The IP address space is a "community asset" and as such, the allocation of it needs to be done in a way which serves & benefits the Internet community at-large.
Which would form a strong analogy to the FCC's original legal justification for existence in 1934 which was that the radio spectrum is a limited, public trust and as such the FCC is given the power to regulate it and its contents in the public's interest (and, hence, to regulate content in "the public interest".) I would be very careful what I wish for. Fortunately IPv6 could be a counter-balance to any claims of jurisdiction based on limited address space though perhaps the camel's nose will get into the tent first; in theory all address space is finite, even if vast. It's hard to imagine power over content achieved based on IPv4's limited address space would be later yielded for IPv6 any more than the tiny spectrum space of 1934 was ever yielded due to the vast expansion of spectrum afforded by subsequent improved technology. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*