[arin-ppml] Spectrum and IP address reservations / More from NERA

[Lee Howard]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: "tvest at eyeconomics.com" <tvest at eyeconomics.com>
> Cc: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:43:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Spectrum and IP address reservations / More from NERA
> 
> 
> > I'm not even sure what you're trying to imply here. 
> > NERA is the authority that *you* first chose to recommend, 
> > when (as you explained) their findings indirectly supported 
> > the position that you've clearly staked out in all of the 
> > IPv4 transfer/market/privatization debates (and perhaps
> 
> Tom, 
> On the NERA report, it makes some interesting points, and has some relevance to 
> current ip address debates about reservations for "new entrants" as the free 
> pool shrinks. And generally, I think it useful to use spectrum allocation as a 
> pool of policy experience with relevance to ip addressing. 

Looked to me like Tom's point was that the report said, "These findings are not
relevant [in cases like this]."  

> I am not citing NERA as an unqualified authority; I did not say that it 
> supported "my position" on anything; this particular report has nothing to do 
> with the transfer market debate; 

I probably missed your point then.  Would you clarify how this report is 
interesting to this community, if not in the context of IP address transfer markets?

> I do remain genuinely shocked at the fact that you displayed ignorance of basic 
> perfect competition theory, and that you are unaware of how people have been 
> debating its limitations and uses for decades. That's something we can take up 
> later.

I don't see where he displayed ignorance, and I'm annoyed at the general tone
of your comments.  Please help to maintain the tone of professional respect on
this list.  One way to do that is that if someone seems not to understand 
something that's important to the policy discussion, check whether you have a
common understanding of the terms.

> Maybe it's a cultural difference, but researchers generally send papers around 
> that are "of interest" and these actions do not imply general agreement with 
> worldview or even the findings.

Sure, and one appropriate comment on such papers is, "Interesting, but because
of this section, it isn't as relevant as it otherwise might be."


>  ideas about 
> public policy rather than professing shock when you come up against something 
> that differs from your own ideology and then engaging in stereotyping campaigns. 

Tom is not the professor of shock in this thread.

Lee