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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

I'm not for it no matter what but I will not oppose a
transfer policy with a sunset clause.

If your not for something and your not going to oppose
it then from everyone else's point of view, your neutral.

Unfortunately, it seems that the people opposed to
sunset clauses are not satisfied with merely being 
ignored by the neutrals.  They seem to
think that if your for a sunset clause that your
against them.  There is no room in their world view
for people like myself, or for people who are in favor of
a transfer policy but are neutral on the issue of having
a sunset clause.  Their attitude seems to be that if I
can't have my transfer policy without a sunset clause,
then I'm going to take my policy and go home.


Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sweeting, John [mailto:john.sweeting at twcable.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: tedm at ipinc.net; mueller at syr.edu; jhg at omsys.com; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> canyouplease help?
> 
> Thank you for your generosity, so are you for or against a 
> transfer policy? With or without a sunset clause?
> 
> 
> P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you 
> for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> To: 'Milton L Mueller' <mueller at syr.edu>; 'Jeremy H.Griffith' 
> <jhg at omsys.com>; 'ARIN PPML' <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tue Apr 07 14:01:56 2009
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> canyouplease	help?
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
> Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
> or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
> is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
> of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
> copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> 
>