[arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can youplease help?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: Jeremy H.Griffith; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can youplease help?
> 
> Jeremy:
> Like a few others, you are dead set against any market 
> transfer policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and 
> please, no need for the smileys)
> 
> Your principled opposition to the involvement of monetary 
> exchanges in address allocations is clear. Why pretend, then, 
> that this debate is about a sunset date? 
> 

You are addressing Jeremy and maybe he is dead-set against a
transfer policy and as a result, is looking at the sunset
clause as a way of killing it.

But a great many other people, such as myself, are dead-set
against a transfer policy BUT we are willing to give you 
pro-transfer policy advocates a 1 year chance to run out and fall
flat on your face because we are already convinced that a
transfer policy will be an extreme mess with many bad side
effects.

When you have children, you can tell them a dozen
times that if they stick their fingers on a hot stove that
they are going to get burned - but you know perfectly well
that your just eventually going to have to let them go ahead
and do it, and get their fingers burned, because they are
just too thick-headed to believe you until it happens to them.

Of course, you also know as a parent, that even though they
do end up burning their fingers, they will pretend that they
didn't, since they would die first before admitting to you that
you were right.  Of course, you will notice that from that
point on they will stop attempting to stick their fingers on
the hot stove.

That is the situation from MY point of view with a transfer
policy.  You and the other pro-transfer advocates are arguing
from a theoretical point, not a practical point of view.  You
desperately want the reality to match the ideal.  I am not
saying that your ideal is bad.  It's flaw is in application to
the reality of things.  I've learned over time that when people
argue from their ideal they will refuse to give it up even when
proven wrong.

For an obvious example, even though in the US the Republicans
economic philosophy of deregulation of monopolies and loose
control of the financial system has now been thoroughly discredited
for the SECOND time (the first was back in 1930) the die-hard
Republicans are, amazingly enough, STILL arguing in favor of it.
They will go to their graves believing they were right and it
was never their fault.

Similarly with the transfer policy, I expect that in 3 years the
mess it made will be obvious to everyone - but YOU personally will
STILL be arguing in favor of it, and be dismissing all the bad
side-effects as not the fault of the idea.

Thus, I'm willing to give you a 1 year chance because I think you will
merely succeed at proving to all the undecided people out there
what a bad idea it is.  That is why I'm only in favor of this
if the sunset clause is retained.

Ted