[ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed

On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:38 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

> Paul Vixie wrote:
>>>>> There's an IPv4 black market now.
>>>> can you describe it?  how many transactions, what dollar volume,  
>>>> what
>>>> average price, is it all sales or also leasing, how do they  
>>>> manage whois,
>>>> is it done by M&A of shell companies, when did it first begin  
>>>> operations,
>>>> is volume growing or shrinking, how many participants?  things  
>>>> like that.
>>> paul, what is it about the term "black market" is there that you  
>>> seem
>>> not to understand?
>> probably nothing.  as to what i know i don't understand, it's how  
>> arin could
>> make meaningful or useful policy that takes into account unprovable  
>> assertions
>> about unmeasureable forces.
>
> i don't either.  but it has a well established track record of doing  
> so.
> but amateur regulation only goes so far.  the pros are coming.
>
> maybe it's time to let go?

Hi Randy,

 From the vantage point of history, these arguments seem an awful lot  
like the debates of 1994-1995.
The Internet may have grown a thousandfold since then, but the logic  
and the rhetoric and the positions on this issue have scarcely changed  
at all. Absolutely not at all, in fact.

Was there anything in the substance of the old arguments that made one  
position any more/less an example of "amateur regulation" than the  
other? If so, back in 1994-1995, which side was the "amateur  
regulator" -- and what exactly was the other side?

Since my postings here are often followed by comments about AR-ism,  
I'm going to speculate that the ARs prevailed back then. And yet, the  
pros didn't swoop in and take over back in 1996-1997. Some of them may  
have tried, but other pros seemed to believe that the amateurs were  
doing a good enough job for the mission to remain in their care.

I think the same divisions still exist among the pros, just as they  
still do, clearly, among us amateurs. If (or when) there is consensus  
at the sovereign level, nothing's going to stand in their way. Thus,  
the mere fact of this debate stands as proof that such consensus does  
not now exist. The blatant absence of a united front back in 1994-1995  
also didn't doom the undertaking back then, so while the critical  
audience may have grown in the interim, it's not clear to me why  
debate is any more intrinsically harmful now than it was back then.

(very strange shades of the Democratic primary here)

So, are you really saying that you no longer think that the community  
is competent to debate and decide its own future? I don't really  
believe that you think that -- I believe this is just a clever, high  
stakes rhetorical tactic. If I'm wrong, however, this is probably the  
wrong venue to take that message to... but no doubt there are plenty  
of other places where it would be received with great interest.

TV