[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call

[Tom Vest]

On Jan 1, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Leo
>
> I write this half-heartedly because we are just repeating the same  
> old positions. Those who are knee-jerk against markets (Kargel, you,  
> etc.) have used Herrin's simple rewording proposal to reassert their  
> view. Yawn. It might be more productive to debate the merits of the  
> rewording. Anyway,
>
>> The thing I find odd about people who believe both of these things
>> is they seem to have been for "needs based" allocation in the past.
>
> Nothing odd here. The IGP paper and other analyses have explained  
> why the rationale for needs-based administrative allocation breaks  
> down completely when the free pool is exhausted. Once the free space  
> is gone it is no longer about "need" is it is about "relative need";  
> i.e., it is possible for 2 - N applicants for the same address space  
> to have fully justified claims on the same amount of the address  
> space. At that point the administrator has to use some criterion  
> other than "need" to redistribute the resource. What will it be?
>
> Even if there are no market-based transfers, the definition of  
> "need" will change radically, to reflect the greater scarcity, as  
> ARIN will be forced to impose tougher standards of what constitutes  
> need based on this relativistic (scarcity-based) assessment, and to  
> reassess the allocations of people who got them based on "need" in  
> the past in order to reclaim them for other uses.
>
> The status quo you defend so doggedly will and must end.

The status quo will definitely end. But the kind of ideological  
orthodoxy that has shaped everything that you've ever written, here  
and elsewhere, does not have to be the blueprint for what comes next.

> You are not opposing markets you are opposing the fact of scarcity,  
> which is (as the Canute story suggests) a futile exercise.

Sometimes I wish I had that kind of faith -- the kind that dictates  
that there is one-and-only-one choice of action given the assertion of  
some single, master fact.
It would certainly make life a lot simpler and easier.

Alas, I live in a world where "master facts" like that don't exist, or  
at least don't justify the suspension of all judgment and common sense  
about how to act in their presence.

There are plenty of people in this community with strong libertarian  
leanings, but as a whole the community has always been fairly  
pragmatic about adapting to changing circumstances. May it remain so  
in 2009...

Happy new year all,

TV