[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIRTransfers -Shepherd's Inquiry

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:45 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIRTransfers -
> Shepherd's Inquiry
> 
> >>
> >> So to think we have any significant power to prevent the rise of an
> IPv4
> >> market is naive. What we should do is acknowledge it and take the steps
> to
> >> transition ARIN from an arbiter of who gets addresses to a title-agency
> >> whose routing authority is respected enough to handle the challenges
> >> facing
> >> registration in the post-exhaust world.
> >
> > This falls back to the argument that illicit drug sales are going to
> happen anyway and we can't stop them so we should legislate and tax them.
> I personally don't buy that argument and I refuse to believe that we
> should facilitate a bad practice just because it is inevitable.
> >
> 
> Very poor choice of analogy.
> 
> Prohibition of vice is a very different thing from regulation of a market.
> 
> > The majority of drivers break speed limit laws, yet I still feel speed
> limit laws are good and necessary.  Even if rules don't completely
> eradicate a problem the existence of the rules can ameliorate the problem.
> >
> 
> I think there are places where speed limit laws make sense. I support what
> California calls the basic speed law and certain laws of presumption
> (known as prima facie speed limits). However, there are many speed limit
> laws that make no sense yet remain in place (70 MPH on I-5 is a good
> example).
> 
> Getting back to the subject however, Kevin is correct in that even if our
> efforts to regulate the market are not 100% successful it is still useful
> to attempt to do so.
> 
> Owen
Thanks Owen. You are always more accurate in your verbiage than I.  I am jealous of your skill in that regard. My apologies to all if I made poor choices in illustrations.  
Kevin