[arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4Recovery

[Tom Vest]

On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:

>>> I agree.  I have said before that ARIN should be like the
>>> automotive title group in the state governmnent (at least
>>> like they do it in MD)  Party A wants to sell a car, party B
>>> want to buy.  Party A signs over his title to Party B and the
>>> state, upon deciding the party A title is valid, issues a new
>>> title to party B and collects the appropriate sales tax (ARIN
>>> fees)  Let the free market work within the confines of ARIN
>>> validating the legitimacy of the two parties claims. (i.e.
>>> the numbers were party A's to transfer and party B justified
>>> their need per standard ARIN policy)
>
>> The problem here is that the automotive title group in the state
>> government does NOT own the cars that it's titling.  Thus this is
>> a very flawed analogy.
>
>> A more accurate analogy is that ARIN is the owner of a large,
>> desirable (maybe the rents are cheap) apartment complex with many
>> apartments.  Apartment dwellers may want very much to "sell"
>> their apartments when they are moving out to new would-be apartment
>> dwellers who want to live there, and the would-be apartment
>> dwellers may be very willing to "buy" them.  But, the dwellers don't
>> own or have control over the apartments.
>
> It is an ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESSLY PERFECT analogy as you just pointed  
> out.  The Car title registrar does not and never did own the cars --  
> all they have an interest in is the registering and ensuring that  
> each Car is uniquely registered to only one responsible owner.  That  
> is precisely how IP Addresses work.  ARIN does not own them (in  
> fact, no one owns them).  ARINs job is simply to ensure that the  
> "not their property" is uniquely registered to the party who is  
> resposible for it.
>
> As for worrying about selling the same thing multiple times over to  
> different parties, this happens in the meatspace world all the  
> time.  In fact, it has been a meatspace problem for such a loooong  
> loooong time that there is an expression for it in ancient and long  
> dead romance languages:  CAVEAT EMPTOR
>
> Schmucks and schmeels sell the same HOUSE multiple times to  
> different parties and take deposits from all the simultaneous buyers  
> and then abscond with the proceeds.  Usually they didn't even own  
> the thing being sold in the first place.
>
> This analogy is also flawless!
>
> CAVEAT EMPTOR!

The apartment complex is a perfect analogy IFF:

1. The numbered apartments have no fixed geographic coordinates, and  
can move at will, in whole or independently on a room by room basis,  
and do so invisibly to all but a handful of the residents of other,  
equally invisible apartment and apartment fragments -- i.e., those who  
are willing to permit one of the free-floating chunks to "settle down"  
again next-door.

2. The apartment dwellers themselves may only have visibility into the  
specific room(s) that they're actively occupying  at any given time;  
squatters may take up residence in one of the spare rooms at any time,  
or room pirates may attempt to unilaterally relocate their occupied  
fragment to another part of the complex, or another building altogether.

3. Once the property parts ways, in whole or in part, with its last  
"authoritatively known" coordinates, the only assurance that a  
potential buyer -- or potential neighbor -- will be able to obtain on  
that property at any time thereafter will have to come via --  
literally -- *blind* trust, i.e., willing acceptance of non- 
verifiable, non-falsifiable self-assertions and heresay.

4. It's a rowdy building, with known crooks in residence (somewhere),  
and quite a few residents who occasionally leave the bath water  
running or leave something cooking on their stovetop all night. When  
your own apartment fills with smoke or water, or something worse, if  
it's not coming from one of your known immediate neighbors, the exact  
source may be unknowable. Of course, being a fully sovereign unit  
yourself, you  can always just cut your own neighbor off... unless  
that neighbor happens to provide you with the only exit out of your  
own unit.

The apartment analogy does have one important feature in common with  
the auto registration analogy: in either case there is no independent  
mechanism or authority capable of monitoring levels of compliance with  
any registration rules that are still deemed to be important, and no  
insightful (i.e., capable of seeing/determining the facts  
independently) entity to act has a *passive* deterrent, much less as  
an active authority capable of investigating  and, if/when necessary,  
enforcing rules.

Bottom line: analogies, even self-serving ones, have to make sense.  
This one missies the mark by a mile.

TV