[arin-ppml] CGN multiplier was: RE: Input on an article by Geoff Huston (potentially/myopically off-topic addendum)
tvest at eyeconomics.com
Thu Sep 15 12:09:08 EDT 2011
On Sep 15, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Chris Engel wrote:
>> Your own personal feel feelings about criminal and noncriminal behavior are
>> completely irrelevant to the impact that address distribution arrangements
>> of the sort that you advocate would inevitably have on the incidence and
>> consequences of both Internet-related criminality and mere operational
>> incompetence. To crib an famous line from a much earlier iteration of this
>> same argument, "one may choose to ignore the fundamental technical
>> issues, but this doesn't change the fundamental property of these issues."
> By that arguement, we'd all be "safer" if nearly everyone was locked in a cage 24/7 and forced to wear ankle tracking bracelets whenever they were allowed out. I mean if people were allowed to roam free and even unmonitored the incidents of robbery, assault and even murder are bound to increase? Here is the thing, freedom comes with the inherint possibility to use that freedom to do bad or stupid things. I don't know about you, but most of the people I associate with value freedom more then they fear crime or failure. It's one of the essential principles that the U.S. was founded upon.
> In terms of the internet, it means that people are free to make all sorts of stupid or bad choices....but without that sort of freedom, I don't think you'd really need to be worrying about IPv6, because the entire internet would be comfortably fitting in a single /16.
> Christopher Engel
Before bowing out of this thread, I'll just refer you back to yesterday's "free pony with every prefix" parable, and point out that most people are able to imagine a larger number of possible arrangements than the extremes of "'I can do and have whatever I want' shall be the whole of the law," and "a giant boot stamping on the face of all humanity forever." I believe that most people are also capable of understanding why one cannot reasonably expect or coherently demand BOTH absolute freedom of private action AND absolute freedom from the possibility of being held accountable for one's actions at the same time. I would *almost* go so far as to say that such imaginative faculties are a prerequisite for constructive participation in any kind of collective decision-making process, including protocol resource policy development.
Granted, that last bit is just my own personal opinion -- and in any case there is no requirement that participation must be constructive, or coherent, or realistic, by mine or anybody else's definition(s).
But thanks very much for thought-provoking exchange,
More information about the ARIN-PPML