[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy: why the trigger date?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
>Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:11 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; PPML ppml
>Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy: why the trigger
date?

>This is the kind of response I had hoped I wouldn't get.

For starters, please use ASCII text, and do a better job of
formatting.

>I know there are ideologically motivated people who think it
>is evil to trade addresses, or "immoral" to hold on to more than
>you actally "need" (as if "address need" were some stable, fixed
>and objectively verifiable attribute of any network). But if that
>is your position,

NO, Milton, it's YOUR position.  YOU were the one who said that
you had "more addresses than I needed"  YOU are the 
"ideologically motivated" person, here.

-I- never said that -I- had more addresses than -I- needed, nor
did anyone else.

YOU were the one who brought that up.  NOT ME.

>then there should be no transfer policy at all, right?

There already is a transfer policy.  It's called, returning the
addresses you don't need to those who assigned them, so they can
be handed out to those who do need them.

You should try it out before just assuming that it won't work.

>So while it is evident that that attitude has shaped the nature of
>ARIN's policy, it is not really relevant to defining a transfer policy
>once you decide to have one.

However we haven't yet decided to have one.  Thus, your out of order.

>>ARIN policy isn't supposed to be based on an economic rationale.

>Um. Policies pertaining to scarce resources used by global industries
>that aren't grounded in sound economic concepts about actual behavior
>under conditions of scarcity cannot succeed.

Spoken like a dyed in the wool trickle-down economist.  Where is the
scarce resource?  Numbers?  We have lots of addresses.  Just because
they aren't the color you want, doesen't mean they won't work.

>The greatest good for the greatest number cannot be achieved without
>taking actors' economic incentives into account.

It's done all of the time.

>>See below.
>>By definition, if you have "too much" address space then you
>>are required under the RSA you signed to return it.  Why - because [snip]
>>Therefore your hypothetical situation -cannot- exist pre-IPv4 runout.
>Your statement describes an idealized interpretation of what you consider
>to be a moral obligation. It does not describe how people actually behave.

Explain then why so many organizations have returned addressing, then.
They apparently weren't reading the same textbooks that you were.

> Thus, your statement that the situatuion "cannot" exist is factually
> incorrect. The situation does exist, and "everyone knows it does"

Lame argumentum ad populum won't save you now,

>Further, the situation exists both before and after IANA's free pool
exhaustion.
>The modification of the ARIN requirements to permit "selling"
>effectively modifies the existing RSAs that people have signed,
>because it basically says that "After IPv4-runout we don't give a crap
>how you got your IPv4, whether honestly or not, from this point on we all
>have a clean slate" This is why such a policy is a horrible idea pre-IPv4
runout.

>OK, I am glad that you finally got around to attempting to answer my
>question. And your anwer is, presumably, that the "clean slate"
>facilitates the transfer of resources from people who value them less to
>people who value them more. And my simple observation is that if it makes
>sense to do that after IANA pool depletion, it makes sense to do it
beforehand.

And if it makes sense to clean the stuff out of the cat litter box
after we buy the cat, it makes sense to do it before we buy the cat...

Come off it Milton.  We aren't that dumb to fall for one of these
leading arguments.

Ted