[arin-ppml] simple question about money

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Fri Jun 13 14:54:03 EDT 2008


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net] 
> The Chinese privatization was short-lived, and when the authorities  
> decided they didn't like the results they re-nationalized
> the "flagship" private/competitive carrier and turned it into the  
> telco for the northern provinces.

There was never any "privatization" in China, nor any
re-nationalization. China has always maintained state ownership of all
telecom sector entities. There was some corporatization of telecom
operations of government agencies (the railroads, ministry of
electronics, PLA, etc.) and some managed competition among them. At a
very local and small-scale level, there was "bootleg" privatization of
radio resources by entrepreneurial military units to run paging
services, but that was reined in. Still, the Peoples Liberation Army is
still probably a big player in telecom. The main reason privatization
doesn't take place, as you know, is so that the state can maintain
top-down control of communications as much as is possible.

> If things turn out to be other that the transfer enthusiasts wish,  
> there will no return path for address resources -- or at least none  
> involving "self-governance" as it currently exists.

Huh? First, a transfer policy can simply be stopped. The policy is
repealed, as of X date. Then there are no more (authorized) transfers;
i.e. no more than there would be if there were no policy at all and the
RIRs continue to bury their heads in the sand. Second, if indeed there
is v6 take up and the whole scheme is transitional as intended, then the
commies have their paradise in the v6 space and can continue to serve as
God-like central planners judging others' needs there. 

> "Diehard communists" are not the only kind of people that raise  
> concerns about embarking on far-reaching privatization plans without  
> adequate forethought.

The frame of "privatization" is the wrong one to draw around the IP
address transfer proposals. Privatization means conferring a legal right
of ownership to the address block assignee. A right to transfer the
address from one user to another using ARIN as an intermediary does not
imply legal ownership.

> Do you remember the debates for and against "shock therapy" 
> in Poland and Russia?

Do you seriously consider these moderate transfer policies as "shock
therapy?" I guffaw, sir!  The strategy is very Chinese. ;-)


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list