[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusationof fundamentalconflictofinterest/IPaddress policypitched directly to ICANN

[Owen DeLong]

On May 3, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Kevin, answers inline.
> 
> 
>> Really?
> 
>> You think that the DNS registry system that is in place today is a standard to which ARIN should aspire?
> 
> I remember paying $100 for domain names from Network Solutions that I can get instantly now for $6.
> 
I remember domain names being free and based on first-come, first-served without regard to copyright
or trademark issues as they were not considered linked or intersecting namespaces. The privatization
of DNS with a for-profit entity (Network Solutions) was the first step down the slide into today's
degenerate chaos. The fact that modern degenerate chaos is less expensive than early degenerate
chaos does not change the fact that it is still degenerate chaos.

I remember requirements which prevented companies from polluting the namespace with every possible
or perceived possible random spelling, misspelling, and permutation of TLD they could think of to point
to the exact same RHS information.

I remember a civilized system without domain tasting and several other tools currently providing
tremendous assistance to spammers.

> 
>> You think that it will be better when IP addresses are managed in the various courts and by the various governments around the world?  Do you realize that when government starts managing a resource they have to >pay for that management somehow?  Guess how they will do that..
> 
> I am not asking governments to manage resources, I am asking them to settle inevitable conflicts of law and custom. For example, witness the issues related to domain names and trademarks.
> Those kinds of decisions require governments to make them. In the case of ip transfers, all I expect the government to treat them like the assets they are. The government inevitably deals with assets when they tax, for example, and when they handle them in divorce or bankruptcy cases, ahem, for example.
> 
If we had simply stuck to the idea that domain names are a separate namespace from trademarks
and are issued first-come-first-serve with limits on the number of domain names an organization
could possess (as used to be the case), those issues would not have really existed. It was when
ICANN brought WIPO into the process and started putting policies in place for the mapping of
trademarks onto domain names that this problem manifested itself and we began on the road
to the mess we have today.

>> When the US government (not to mention others) gets in to play on this how far do you think we will be from a 'Department of Internet Commerce'?  Do you really want to hasten that eventuality?
> 
> I'm not clear on how removing justification requirements (or creating private registries) will lead to the Department of Internet Commerce. By all means, please understand that the very idea is antithetical to my thinking, so you will have to describe the process you are describing.
> 
You seem to be unclear on how removing community based policy from address administration
will result in a destabilization of the internet which would inevitably lead to greater regulation.
I suspect your "sell 'em all and let the market sort 'em out" ideology provides such a different
base frame of reference from my "central management of address resources in accordance
with community consensus based policies creates and preserves stability and rational
resource distribution" ideology that I'm not sure I know how to clarify it in a way that you would
be able to internalize.

The current internet is the result of the current system. I believe that it is working reasonably
well for a great many people.

Admittedly, we have no data on how your approach would affect number resource management
because nobody that I know of in history has ever attempted such an approach. IMHO, this is
because of the extreme risks associated with such an approach.

I can point to examples of where I think your philosophy has led in other non-number resource
environments:

	Enron
	Worldcom
	Collateralized Mortgage Obligations
	Savings and Loans/Charles Keating
	Union Carbide/Bhopal, India
	British Petroleum/Gulf of Mexico
	Exxon/Valdez, Alaska

and finally, your own example:

	The current state of ICANN managed DNS structures

The fact that you consider this last example some sort of shining beacon of how things should
be (obviously I have a very different perspective) is, I believe, indicative of the chasm between
our perspectives which makes it difficult to find a common frame of reference for the discussion.

> 
>> If everyone would play nice and not be driven by greed or power then I would be inclined to agree with some of your propositions.  Unfortunately we are living in a far from perfect world.
>> Kevin
>> qui totum vult totum perdit
> 
> My concept of free markets are based on self-interest (greed, if you will).
> I appealed to the idea of the Invisible Hand as an example of how self-interest leads to the greater good through free markets.
> I don't know what part of my ideology relies on people playing nice, I think the opposite idea is usually attributed to my ideas.
> 
> 
The problem with free markets is that they rarely actually tie greed to the common good, but,
rather assume that the common good is the inevitable result of greed in the market. Most (all)
functional markets end up with rather large bodies of regulation that are constantly being
adapted to new and different mechanisms used to "game the system". Even with such bodies
of regulation, markets tend, over time, to become increasingly dysfunctional and more and more
disconnected from actually achieving any common good.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110504/c5857e04/attachment.htm>