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

[Milton L Mueller]

I don't think this kind of ranting is useful. 

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> 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