[arin-ppml] Some observations on the differences in the various transfer policy proposals

[k claffy]

geoff

tom is one of the few people in this community besides you who
is actually spending many hours per day thinking and writing
about this issue, so i find it a great disservice to us all,
and unbecoming someone of your stature, that you are choosing
to blow off his feedback because you 'rather not write 1,000
words', especially since your essay defending your proposal
has twice that many words, none of which addressed his concerns.
if you are worried about lowering ppml's s/n, could you respond
directly to tom's message below and link to it from your essay?

many of us are really trying to understand the issues here,
and understanding exactly which facts -- and opinions -- 
the heavy thinkers disagree on would help greatly.  

if typing is a problem (it is for me), i would be happy to
moderate a debate between you two and put the mp3 up as a
podcast.  i have great respect for you both, not only for how 
much time you have both put into thinking about this topic, 
and believe it is a bad sign for the Internet (and an even
worse sign for the RIR community) if you declare that tom's 
points aren't even worth addressing.  i suspect they are.

k




On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 05:35:04PM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
  We certainly differ in perspective, thats true.
  
  I'd rather not write a 1,000 word response - this list is already in  
  overload in terms of reading matter, so I'll limit myself to 150  
  words, and  simply state that I do not see this situation within the  
  parameters of the analogies you are drawing here.
  
  As  far as I can see when all thats left to the RIRs in IPv4 in the  
  registry function then it seems rather self-defeating to me to start  
  imposing all kinds of constraints and conditions on write access to  
  the registry. The most natural response in such situation in the face  
  of such constraints and additional overheads is for folk to head to a  
  more accommodating registry. And I don't think that is a desireable  
  outcome.
  
  But you see it differently. Fair enough
  
  rgds,
  
     Geoff
  
     Disclaimer: these are all my opinions - I'm not representing anyone  
  or anybody else.
  
  On 20/10/2008, at 5:03 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
  
  > Geoff, IMHO, you're simply off base here, both in your specific  
  > recommendations, and in your claim that there is no relevant  
  > experience base.
  >
  > I happen to believe that you've been absolutely true to your  
  > convictions since RFC 1744. And I recognize that your convictions  
  > (if RFC 1744 is any guide), or at least your concrete  
  > recommendations since then, have a solid, principled foundation in  
  > libertarian "free banking" theories (for those interested, see  
  > references below). But the fact remains, every time that such  
  > theories have been put into practice they have failed absolutely,  
  > resulting in the imposition of national partitioning of markets and  
  > regulatory structures, if not outright nationalization/operation of  
  > the affected industries. There is no reason to doubt that anything  
  > other than that will result from the course of action you're  
  > advocating, and numerous specific and likely reasons/paths that  
  > would lead precisely to that outcome.
  >
  
  [...]
  
  
  _______________________________________________
  PPML
  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:
  http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
  Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.