[arin-ppml] SWIPs & IPv6
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Sun Dec 6 15:41:59 EST 2009
No, you did not make your position clear. And however much you resent it, my question forced you to greatly clarify your position, which has led to a significant improvement in the quality of discourse - or could, if you'd stop being defensive, and actually try to benefit from over a centi=ury of research on regulatory systems and political economy which already deals with issues such as public interest obligations, the distinction btween "commons," public goods, public interest regulation and the like.
What you call sophistry I call precision. Just be aware that words like "commons" actually have meanings and if you're going to invoke them to prove something you ought to know what they mean.
Your post below is a big advance over the earlier one: you have moved from making a simplistic claim that the status of number resources as a "public commons resource" (a nonexistent category in institutional economics) gives you a blanket right to impose any data disclosure requirements you wish, to a vastly more qualified and intelligent list of conditions regarding the matching of grants and obligations. I'll go over those claims more carefully as the conversation proceeds, if there is time.
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
Internet Governance Project:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 12:45 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] SWIPs & IPv6
> Perhaps I did not use an exactly correct term to meet your
> sophistry requirements.
> However, internet addresses are a resource which has been placed in
> the trust of the RIR
> system for distribution in the best interests of the internet
> community as defined by that
> community. To me, that is as much a form of public commons as
> anything else.
> I thought I made my position clear on the subject at hand,
> but, since
> you apparently did
> not understand, I'll clarify further:
> 1. If you receive more than a trivial amount of IP number
> you have the
> responsibility to make valid reliable contact data
> available to those
> users of the
> internet who may need to contact you in the event that systems
> claiming to be
> within your network are sending harmful or undesired
> traffic into
> their networks.
> (Note, that anyone with an internet connection fits in
> the scope of
> this definition
> in my opinion, so, placing the data in whois seems perfectly
> reasonable since
> you cannot generally access whois data without an
> internet connection).
> 2. You have the responsibility not to emit harmful traffic
> in general.
> 3. You have the responsibility not to emit undesired
> traffic towards
> networks that
> have informed you that they do not want your traffic.
> 4. You have the responsibility to respond to attempts to
> with you via
> the contact information you have published, and, to act in a
> reasonable fashion
> to resolve issues brought to your attention through
> that contact.
> Now, since the next obvious question is the definition of a trivial
> amount of IP number
> resources, I'll clarify my thoughts on that subject as well:
> 1. If you possess more than zero ASNs, you have a
> non-trivial amount
> of IP number
> 2. If you possess any RIR-direct allocations or
> assignments, you have
> a non-trivial
> amount of IP number resources.
> 3. If you possess more than 8 globally unique IPv4, you
> have a non-
> trivial amount
> of IP number resources.
> 4. If you possess more than a /60 of IPv6 addresses (either a
> contiguous /60 or
> some combination of longer prefixes totaling an
> equivalent amount of
> space), you have a non-trivial amount of IP number resources.
> As I stated, the residential privacy concerns expressed by other
> posters, including Michael
> Dillon, are bogus because the current policy allows the data
> for those
> resource holders
> to be sufficiently obscured as to protect them.
> Further, most of the other concerns expressed are trivially
> as I suggested
> below, by the organization in question getting a legitimate
> fictitious name
> or creating a corporation and using a mail receiving service
> for their
> address to do
> business with ARIN.
> Sure, there are costs associated with this, just as there is
> a fee for
> having your
> POTS telephone number unlisted. This allows resource holders to
> decide how
> much their privacy is worth to them. I would think you would be the
> last person
> to have a problem with such a mechanism.
> On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Owen
> > There is no law, regulation or constitutional provision that
> > declares Internet addresses to be a "public commons resource."
> > Indeed, your statements indicate that you may not have the
> > grasp of what you are saying theoretically (do you mean "public
> > good" or "commons" and if you mean commons, do you mean
> "open access
> > commons" or not?). FYI, IP addresses are both rival in consumption
> > and excludable, which means that they fail both tests of a public
> > good and need not be regulated as a commons.
> > And even if they were, there is no logical, technical or
> > linkage between the resource management regime and the alleged
> > requirement to make all information about all users completely
> > public for all purposes.
> > To say that using IP addresses entails certain responsibilities is
> > true. But we are debating what those responsibilities are
> or should
> > be., You do not answer that question by begging it.
> > Can we PLEASE attempt to discuss ways to solve the problems Danny
> > MacPherson brought up? I can't even remember clearly what they were.
> > ________________________________________
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Owen DeLong [owen at delong.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:46 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] SWIPs & IPv6
> > The claims that ISPs are forced to maintain contact information for
> > individuals is bunk
> > anyway.
> > 1. There is a residential privacy provision already in whois.
> > 2. Most individuals don't get blocks large enough to require
> > SWIP.
> > Finally, if you need a large block and don't want to register as an
> > individual, getting
> > a legal fictitious name, or, creating a corporation is a relatively
> > simple thing to do.
> > That, combined with an address at a mail receiving service (such as
> > Mailboxes
> > etc. used to do before they became UPS) allows you to
> register without
> > need
> > to expose your residential address.
> > However, internet addresses are a public commons resource. If you
> > want to be
> > granted the exclusive registration of a significant portion of said
> > public commons,
> > then, in exchange, you accept certain r
> > esponsibilities, one of which
> > is maintaining
> > a way to contact you about network-related issues that includes a
> > valid postal,
> > email, and telephone contact point.
> > This is a completely legitimate trade-off and I do not see a need to
> > change it.
> > The information should remain transparent and open.
> > Owen
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML