[arin-ppml] large vs small?
lar at mwtcorp.net
lar at mwtcorp.net
Wed Jun 17 18:19:22 EDT 2009
Enough already. This mouse has been miked dry.
Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
>> 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
> 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.
> 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
>> 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
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Mountain West Telephone
400 East 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387
More information about the ARIN-PPML