[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Sun Jun 22 10:25:53 EDT 2008
I agree with many of your comments, but as a social scientist I can tell
you that the science, modeling, empirically grounded analysis, etc.,
etc., that you call for is only one of many tugs and pulls on the policy
making process. This is both good and bad. On the bad side, it means
that things like political power, scare tactics, ignorance, inertia, and
path dependency play as big a role as good science in shaping policy. On
the good side, society is not a deterministic closed system like
physics, social science models are inevitably a simplification and even
the best of them can turn out to be outrageously wrong. So it's a relief
that other factors are involved in actually influencing what happens.
I agree that the "Internet community" shouldn't be patting itself on the
back too much anymore, its main blunder being the lack of backwards
compatibility of v6, but I also believe that compared to the historical
evolution of other communication technologies (telephone, broadcasting,
telegraph) I see nothing exceptionally bad about the performance of what
I think Paul means by the "Internet community." Its greatest strength
and greatest weakness is this assumption that the Internet is
exceptional and that this legacy community bears some special
responsibility that other policy shapers don't.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> Behalf Of k claffy
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:28 PM
> To: Paul Vixie
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy
> 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.
> no way forward without some kind of miracle, such as 464 or LISP or
> 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
> 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
> all hate the costs and complexities of ipv6, but the sooner we all
> bullet the better off we will all be." or even "dead or alive,
> with me" (oops, "market or no market, we're all going to be using
> 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.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy
> Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if
> experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML