[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to somecategoryof organization

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I haven't intervened in this debate even though it is a highly interesting one. One element seems to be lacking from the discussion. To me, it is an incredibly clear demonstration of the complete breakdown of the needs-based allocation principle as soon as scarcity arises.
> 

I disagree.  It's not a COMPLETE breakdown.  However, you are
correct in that it -IS- a breakdown.

> What Michael Dillon has been saying, in effect, is that organizations that can demonstrate a perfectly viable technical "need" for IPv4 addresses shouldn't get them. 
> 

There is no perfectly viable need for IPv4 addresses, such a thing is
impossible.

But, essentially this is correct.  Michael is saying that orgs that
could demonstrate a need for large chunks of IPv4 under the current
policy, shouldn't get them - thus we should change policy to exclude
them.

> Maybe this is so obvious to all of you that it's going unstated,

I think it's not obvious to most people, Milton, because most people
in the discussion like to think of themselves as no-regulation,
hands-off kind of people.  They are horrified to be pushed into
regulating a market, and are trying desperately to make excuses
to themselves that what they are discussing really isn't regulation -
even when it is.


> If you abandon "demonstrated need" and are _not_ willing to use prices or some other neutral, market-based rationing principle,
> 

But, why should we?

Your operating from the assumption that because a market's decisions
are mindless, that they are somehow more "fair"  This is a bankrupt
assumption which has been more than adequately demonstrated by the
recent economic events in the United States.

All those "markets are fair" people were the first in line for
TARP funds when their backs were against the wall.  All that
"market is good" conservativism was shown for the fraud it is
when that happened.


The first fact is that the IPv4 depletion is going to cause problems,
that will cost some people money.  I'd say a LOT of people money.

The second fact is that this money is going to come from the users,
ultimately.  In higher Internet fees, or other less-visible side-effects.

The third fact is that a network is more useful the more people are
on it, and there is a snowball effect that's going - the more people
who connect the more useful it is thus the more who are attracted to
connect, etc.

The last fact is that when you add up the pros and cons, the Internet 
has been good for humanity.  It's not something we want to go away.

The goal of ALL of the Internet governing communities and groups out
there should be to attempt to mitigate as much as possible the effects
of IPv4-runout.  In other words, make decisions that will enable the
maximum number of users to connect.  Users, as in PEOPLE.

The fact is that connecting an electric utility meter adds virtually
NOTHING to attract more people to connect to the Internet.  Connecting
such a thing to the Internet benefits the utility.  It does not reduce
costs of everyone else on the Internet to connect to the Internet.
It does not add anything to attract people to the Internet.  It does
not add warm bodies to the Internet, thus increasing the Internet's
attractiveness to people.  In other words, it's an action that is almost
universally a detriment to the Internet.

Just like having a billion people come tramping through Yellowstone
park in a year would be a huge detriment.

The conservatives and liberals would both agree that doing this to
Yellowstone would harm it.  However, the conservatives response is to
turn Yellowstone into Disneyland and charge people to get in, and
just raise prices until the number of people who get in are reduced to
a sustainable level.

This is like what your advocating in saying "market based rationing"
for the Internet.  Your advocating that it's fair.

But, it would destroy Yellowstone because it would turn it in to a rich
man's playground - and then the taxpayers would start asking why are we
paying for this place out of our taxes to be a National Part when most 
of us will never get inside.  Thus Yellowstone would be sold to the
developers and parceled out into condos.

The liberals would say the answer to Yellowstone is to regulate the 
number of times a person could come into Yellowstone, maybe to 10 times 
during their lifetime.  Of course, this would piss off the conservatives 
- it's no surprise that most rich people are conservatives, by the way - 
but the advantage is it would preserve the ability for Joe Sixpack to go 
to Yellowstone - if he wanted.  Thus preserving support for it BY 
REGULATION.

What the ARIN community here needs to be doing is to be applying
REGULATION to IPv4 numbering that preserves Joe Sixpack's access
to the Internet.  NOT the BigCo rich utilities access to the Internet
so they can fire their meter readers (in the midst of a recession) and
save some bucks in labor.  We invented IPv6 for those BigCo's, they
need to use it.

I personally don't have a problem doing that.  Most everyone else
here doesn't either - although quite a lot of them seem to not want
to face the fact that Regulating is what they are doing.

Ted