[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund / history lesson #1
Tom Vest
tvest at pch.net
Tue Nov 25 08:16:46 EST 2008
On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that my predictions are familiar to most community
>> members by now.
>
> through repitition, not validation.
>
> randy
Hi Randy,
While I'm pretty sure you meant that as a criticism, I'll take the
charge of "repetition" as a sign that, at least, I am consistent --
which should make it much easier to evaluate my predictions after the
fact. I would encourage everyone in this debate to lay their chips
down equally clearly, somewhere.
Moreover, I don't know how to validate a prediction other than to see
if it comes true, except perhaps to identify and detail historical
precedents. I know that I have attempted to do that systematically in
some depth [1]; perhaps others have also done so and I just don't know
about it. Can you suggest other, equally or more valid methods?
Anyone willing to take up the challenge is encouraged to read on...
TV
+++++
Here's an example of a clear prediction, albeit one that history has
tested and found wanting:
Mid-1996 (just before the US Telecom Act of 1996 went into effect):
"He (Mueller) said New Zealand's lack of regulation meant issue would
be settled by courts. Case demonstrated that govt. intervention is
needed only at beginning and that competition is viable without equal
access." [2]
+++++
Here's an example of the selective assertion of mutually contradictory
claims to different audiences:
On Nov 24, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Tom, you are the only person talking about privatization, much less
> "big
> bang" style privatization. The rest of us are talking about
> instituting
> economic incentives for transfers of scarce ipv4 resources. [3]
Question: You write that "the 'self-regulatory regime' being
constructed by ICANN is actually far more centralized and controlling
in nature than the pre-ICANN Internet," with the Commerce Department
announcing "its intention to retain 'policy authority'" over domain
names indefinitely. A pretty bleak outcome for a process that was
supposed to getthe government out of the picture and let markets work.
What went wrong?
Mueller: If the Commerce Department had conceived of [the switch from
Network Solutions to ICANN] as a true privatization, with the
government transferring assets from itself to the private sector, it
should have created a property rights structure that would've allowed
private players to compete. What it did instead was simply transfer
government's role to an organization that it called 'private'. [4]
In case there is any doubt as to which is the more durable view, or
its present relevance:
Mueller: "Some of the problems with ICANN are the result of bad
implementation decisions by the US government, which might be expected
– and excused – given the move into uncharted territory. Even if they
had managed to avoid missteps, however, there is still reason to doubt
whether the Clinton administration’s ‘self-regulation’ concept
provides a coherent basis for the future of internet
administration.The rhetoric of ‘private sector control’ obscures the
fact that the most salient issues in the transition concern the
definition and scope of property rights – in domain names, IP
addresses, trademarks, and zone file data.The policy also glossed over
the fact that control of the internet’s centralized coordination
mechanisms could be exploited or abused to attain regulatory powers
over internet users and suppliers.The definition and enforcement of
individual rights is a function normally associated with government
and with formal law. Indeed, without a clear definition of property
rights there can be no ‘private sector’ and no cohesively organized
‘industry.’ By abdicating its responsibility to define the scope and
the limits of the rights involved and the assets that were being
transferred to ICANN,the US government’s ‘self-regulation’ policy has
engendered confusion, conflict and delay. Whether its approach will
bring corresponding gains remains to be seen." [5]
+++++
And here are some examples of ambiguous if not self-contradictory
predictions that could be interpreted as either/both true and/or false
no matter what happens:
''The real irony is that increasing competition generally leads to
more Government involvement in the industry, not less,'' Mr Mueller
said. "Interconnection will not come about as a product of voluntary
negotiation, because in most cases the incumbent has nothing to gain
and a lot to lose from providing access to its competitors." [6]
"Get over it. It's just business." [7]
+++++
[1] http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/NetStagflationPaper.html
See also: http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/Isomorphism.html,
http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/Presentations/Pages/Bankers_for_BGP_v1.2.html
[2] "New Zealand Network-Opening Model Yielded Mixed Results, Panel
Says," Warren's Telecom Regulation Monitor (July 15, 1996).
[3] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-November/012683.html
[4] Jeff A. Taylor, "I Think ICANN." Reason Magazine (June 1, 2000).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_/ai_62277871
[5] Milton Mueller, "ICANN and Internet Governance: Sorting Through
the Debris of 'Self-Regulation.'” Info: the journal of policy,
regulation and strategy for telecommunications information and media
(December 1999).
http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/mueller_icann_and_internet_governance.pdf
[6] James Riley, "Straight Talk on Competition." South China Morning
Post (October 4, 1994).
[7] Various.
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list