[ppml] Resurrecting ULA Central [was: Re: Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal

[George Kuzmowycz]

"Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow at gmail.com> 04/26/2006 wrote on
11:17:11 PM:
> On 4/25/06, George Kuzmowycz <George.Kuzmowycz at aipso.com> wrote:
>> David Williamson <dlw+arin at tellme.com> wrote on 04/25/2006 9:42:40
AM:
>> > Sounds like I better go read the draft.  I agree that ownership
>> rights
>> > would be a problem
>>
>> Why is the (potential) ownership of IP addresses a Bad Thing?
>>
> 
> I think from the "users don't 'own' ip space" current stance on ip
> address 'ownership' ... you are currently 'assigned' space from ARIN
> for your use you do not 'own' it in the same sense as you 'own' the
> bubble-gum you bought from the local grocer... 'you' being the royal
> form of course.

I'm sorry, but this explanation is simply a tautology.

I recognize I may sound like a troll (I'm not) or a dimwit (perhaps
arguable), but I still don't see it. I recognize that 'allocation' as
opposed to 'ownership' is current policy with a substantial history. I
recognize that this made sense in the environment which existed 20 years
ago, and that altering that policy, at least wrt IPv4 addresses, would
instantly "monetize" those decades-old allocations. I can even
understand the argument of why this might be a bad thing (although I'm
sure some holders of /8's might see it differently.)

What I don't see is why this line of reasoning is being repeated. It
seems, here, just like one of those "everyone knows" arguments, and I
guess I'm just not part of "everyone".