[arin-ppml] large vs small?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>>
>> Oh Please! I have explained to you (on another list) that RIRs do NOT
>> make policy, the RIR community makes policy. I have explained this to
>> you many times.
> 
> And I have explained to you equally as many times why no social scientist familiar with policy making processes would ever buy that argument. Apparently we're talking past each other. Anyway, that debate is not relevant to my exchanges with Owen, Michael and Ted about fees, so let's drop it.
> 
> My point was that it is difficult to have a coherent and productive discussion about the appropriate level
 > of fees to be charged for IP address blocks when, for reasons that I 
can only tag as "religious," key figures
 > insist that ARIN fees have nothing to do with access to address blocks.
> 

The key figures are not blocking fee discussions BECAUSE of the semantic 
games your describing.

The key figures are attempting to block fee discussions simply because
they don't want to talk about fees, period.  They use the semantic games
to distract the audience from the real issue - fee fairness.

If you or I used absolutely proper and correct terminology
regarding IP allocations the key figures would simply find even more
ridiculous nonsense to use to distract the audience from having a
fee discussion.

> Obviously, if you've been following this thread, I am not the only one who resists that ideology.
> 

Correct.  Notice how the anti-fee-discussion faction continues to
ignore that fact.

> The troubles compound when others insist that we can't even talk about fees here because they don't constitute policy. 
> 

Agreed.

> I am not criticizing ARIN staff, the Board or anything like that. I am "criticizing" or, more accurately, probing the
 > validity of, a particular viewpoint.

As have I.

Here is how ARIN fee discussions go:

1) The ARIN Board claims their particular methodology, ie: rule 1, to 
assess fees is valid

2) Subject A calls the validity of rule 1 into question.

3) The anti-fee-discussion faction attacks Subject A with a claim that
fee discussion is out of order and refers Subject A to the suggestion box

4) Subject A submits a fee suggestion.

5) The ARIN board takes up the suggestion and states it's invalid,
and directs Subject A back to rule 1


Repeat until Subject A gets tired and goes away.

> I find these anomalies quite interesting. And revealing. 
> 

I find them interesting but not particularly revealing.  Many of
the anti-fee-discussion faction work for orgs that would stand to 
benefit by an overhaul of fees and recognition of what the yearly fees 
are actually paying for, so they are essentially arguing against their 
own selfish-self interest.

I think the real issue is that these folks have regarded fees as
inviolate for so long that they have ceased thinking about them.
Since they all work for companies and orgs and none of them own 
controlling stock in those companies or organizations, it's not their 
money that's being spent, and they aren't used to questioning
dollar amounts.

Bean-counters they ain't.  If they were, Cisco and Juniper probably
wouldn't exist.

Ted

PS  Followups set to arin-discuss since this thread really shouldn't
have been started in arin-ppml in the first place.


>> I can also assure you there are
>> no "altars of non-ownership" that "priests" worship upon in RIR
>> offices.
> 
> Good to know. My experience has been a bit different.
> 
>> If you have a policy proposal that is germaine to this
>> thread (large vs. small), I'd like to hear it.
> 
> Stay tuned
> _______________________________________________
> 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.