[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>michael.dillon at bt.com
>Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:46 PM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional
>Requests
>
>
>> And the side effects would be terrible.  Almost certainly it 
>> would prompt court cases and the like that could possibly 
>> produce caselaw in some jurisdictions of considering IP 
>> addresses property, thus ARIN might lose control of the 
>> assignment authority. 
>
>More likely the caselaw would find that ARIN has the stronger property
>rights in the IP addresses and that the ARIN members are merely being
>loaned the addresses under the ARIN policies. And the legacy holders
>have no property rights at all. In the end, if you don't get your
>addresses through the proper ARIN channels, or voluntarily come into
>compliance with ARIN rules, you could find that caselaw precedents set
>by hoarding cases will remove your right to use your legacy addresses.
>

The opponents of assisted suicide in the state that I live in, Oregon,
thought that way.  They dragged the courts in and succeeded in getting
2 pro-assisted suicide laws that were passed invalidated one after
another.  They thought they were so smart that they had manipulated
the courts to get the result they wanted.  It blew up in their faces
though because it caused the population to become intensely pro-assisted
suicide and public outcry finally forced the politicians to pass a 3rd law
that was ten times worse (from the opponent's point of view) than the prior
2 ones.  Indeed, the support was so solidified that when the federal
government attempted to intervene and get the law invalidated, they
failed.

The courts and government are a chancy way of making policy and 
history is replete with examples of decisions that defy logic and
made things worse.

That caselaw would also of course only apply to the country that it
happend in.


>
>> IPv6 really hasn't been introduced.  IPv6 is currently 
>> nothing more than a set of technical specifications without 
>> an implementation for the MAJORITY of operating systems in 
>> current production use.
>
>Huh! I know there are IPv6 implementations for Windows 98 so I'm not
>sure where this comes from.

Unless it was distributed by Microsoft with the operating system it
won't be supported by any of the 3rd party ISVs.

Sure, Microsoft might give you support on their beta IPv6 stack,
might even fix bugs in it.  But someone like Peoplesoft won't give
you the time of day if you have a problem, unless it was part of
the operating system when the OS was originally released.  Hell,
half the time they won't even help you when their stuff breaks
due to application of security patches!

Ted