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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:00 PM
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; Cliff; Jeff Aitken; arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 
> 2009-4: IPv4Recovery
> 
> 
> 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.
>

Hum.. Well, you just described a typical college dormitory... ;-)
 
> 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.
>

Huh?  Incorrect by all counts both in the analogies and with ARIN.
 
> Bottom line: analogies, even self-serving ones, have to make sense.  
> This one missies the mark by a mile.
> 

As I said, a "more accurate" analogy.  I never claimed it was perfect.

Ted