[arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/5/2011 10:07 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Mike Burns<mike at nationwideinc.com>  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have had an idea.
>>
>> Since it has been determined that everybody in the ARIN community with an
>> email address may participate in policy development, how does the list feel
>> about soliciting the input from a broader group of participants?
>>
>> Suppose I posted to a site like Reason magazine, which is Libertarian,
>> inviting people to join the ARIN ppml in order to support my proposal to end
>> needs requirements for IPv4 transfers?
>>
>> And those who oppose could post to HuffPo or some other site where opposing
>> views might be expected to be courted.
>>
>> Is this a horrible idea?
>>
>> I have not acted on it, there could be large implications.
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike Burns
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
> Mike,
>
> I dislike the idea. PPML is compromised primarily of the olde guard
> that seems intent upon blocking any efforts to commercialize
> registration services.

You can't commercialize something that is not a limited resource.

clean water is a limited resource
oil is a limited resource
IPv4 is a limited resource

air is not a limited resource
IPv6 is not a limited resource.

Any attempt to allow commercialization and you would find the
commercial entities would only be interested in IPv4 resources.
I own a business, trust me, I would never get involved in
commercialization of IPv6 registrations.  There's just no money
in it.

And to have IP addressing where half of it is commercial and
half is not commercial would be extremely confusing.  Worse, because
the commercial entites would want to continue to support the
artificial scarcity of IPv4 and not see their market disintegrated
by IPv6, they would advertise to the general public about how
IPv4 numbers were better, more compatible, than IPv6 and we would
likely end up causing huge problems for the Internet.  You would
end up with regions like ARIN mostly IPv4 and the rest of the world
(which has far greater demands for additional IP addressing)
going to IPv6.  You might as well put a fence around the United
States if that were to happen.  You would also have tremendous
pressure from commercial entities to lower the minimum block size
because they would make more money renting smaller blocks of numbers
than larger blocks of numbers and the DFZ would explode out of
control.

> Even with substantial support, at this point it
> seems those who are actually in charge of voting on policy would block
> these attempts until (in an extreme case) they're completely voted out
> of office. Even with AC support, there has to be concurrence within
> the Board of Trustees.
>

Vote all of them out of office, I guarantee that when the new ones
come in after about 3 months they will see it my way, and not your
way, and you will be right back to where you started.

This is one area where the Olde Guard has it right.  And with the
disaster of commercialization of the DNS system as an example,
the RIR system will never go that way now.  (if you don't think
DNS naming is a disaster, look at the proliferation of TLD's and
example of abusers like Domain Registry of America which has been
sued multiple times and is still to this day engaged in deceptive
advertising)

> You can, however, use your own resources to create a grassroots
> campaign for supporters of this idea (for which I am one, as you're
> aware) to voice their opinions to ARIN and the PPML. Even better, you
> could run for office.
>

I think it would be better if YOU were to run and be elected and
serve.  Once you had some real responsibility for the numbering you
might grow up and quit wasting your brainpower on these sorts of
unworkable proposals.

Ted

> My immediate focus is on a recent proposal that would the specified
> transfer process more palatable.
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-May/021419.html . I
> made the suggestion that the justified need be extended to 36 months,
> which hopefully will gain traction.
>
> Best regards,