[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy

[k claffy]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:52:49PM +0000, paul v wrote:
  most of us are, in the above terms, both pro-market and anti-market.  there's
  no way forward without some kind of miracle, such as 464 or LISP or similar.

that's inconsistent with your favorable stacking of this
community against every other regulation system anywhere in
the world any time in history.  if we're so great at stewardship,
how did we get so stuck so fast?  and why are we now helping
OECD call in meatspace regulatory systems to help deploy ipv6
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/1/40605942.pdf since our 
well-stacked system is failing to get it deployed?

  and while it may be irresponsible to incorporate a "necessary but unknown
  miracle" into one's plans, that's where the reduction leads in this case.  and
  this is what bolsters the case for "stop prolonging the life of ipv4, we might
  all hate the costs and complexities of ipv6, but the sooner we all bite that
  bullet the better off we will all be."  or even "dead or alive, you're coming
  with me" (oops, "market or no market, we're all going to be using ipv6 soon.")

what about the miracle that has to happen for the current
routing and economic architectures to accommodate a couple
decades years of ipv6+ipv4 growth+splintering?  or did someone 
get some numbers and some data to support realistic simulation 
of routing and market dynamics and this option looks quantitatively 
better now?  or are you just recommending the option we have even 
less data about than the current system, because 'how could it
possibly be as bad as what we have now?' counts as stewardship?

'our community' may have all the noble virtues you list,
but they aren't the metrics by which history will judge stewardship.
as we speed toward the edge of this cliff, no regulation
system anywhere in the world at any time in history would
give our system an A (or a B) for stewardship. let's be 
serious, we still don't even have a web page of related work 
or recommended reading, much less research of our own.  we don't 
have scenario planning activities.  we don't have empirically 
grounded analysis of any aspect of the macroeconomic dynamics.
we don't know how to measure, much less model, the phenomena
we're trying to understand.  we're trying to optimize a few
parameters with no regard for how those parameters interact
with other parameters more vital to political economy.
we have made no attempt to assess how much capital is (or
should be) allocated to pursuing various solutions, or metrics
for evaluating the progress of those solutions. there is no
concerted funded effort to develop a long-term sustainable
routing and addressing architecture while we argue about how
to prolong the architecture(s) we all insist are inherently
crippled.  we're mostly trying to keep up with this conversation 
in addition to our day jobs, and we're proud to have as few
regulatory experts in our 'regulatory system' as possible.

many of the smartest people i know are in this community,
but bragging doesn't seem in order.

k