[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Chris Engel]

Tom,

Excising a particular section of this thread for the sake of brevity...

> Fair enough, you prefer to argue logic rather than facts:
> 
> Please provide a negative proof that "logic" could never lead any future
> address user, potential address buyer, and/or potential address seller to
> conclude that registration would not advance their own private interests.
> 
> Please provide a negative proof that "logic" could never lead any future
> address user, potential address buyer, and/or potential address seller to
> embrace "sales-friendly registration" but simultaneously reject
> "operationally relevant registration" (i.e., the kind that makes whois an
> appropriate subject of interest for community deliberation).
> 
> Please provide a negative proof that "logic" will BOTH always lead all future
> address users, address buyers, and address sellers to self-maintain
> "operationally relevant registration" for themselves in perpetuity, AND that
> the attainment of that outcome by means of needs-free transfers could
> never have any unintended consequences that might be as serious or more
> serious than some marginal degradation of whois accuracy.
>

I don't think the above is a fair tactic for debate. You are asking Mike to prove a logical fallacy. Furthermore, when you start using words like "never" and "always" when discussing human behavior as benchmarks for judging the legitimacy of a system...your standards themselves appear absurd. If we applied the same standards for judging the appropriateness of a "needs" based policy, it would assuredly fail as well. Systems designed to regulate human behavior cannot achieve a uniformity of results approaching mathematical perfection, nor need they do so to be effective (IMO).

If you want to argue that it's likely a substantial number of individuals would have logical reasons for not wanting to maintain accurate registration under the policy Mike proposes...that's (IMO) a reasonable standard to base an argument on. Not sure whether I would agree with that proposition or not...but the standard is reasonable. Asking Mike to provide a standard of proof that couldn't allow for even a single exception isn't (IMO).


Christopher Engel
(Representing only my own views)