[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-157 Section 8.3 Simplification

Tom Vest tvest at eyeconomics.com
Thu Sep 22 22:29:33 EDT 2011

On Sep 22, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
>> Believe it.
> I do, because here I am doing it again.
>> You are erroneously presuming that protocol number resources as a class already possess the status that this proposal would impose on them, i.e.,  that of chattel property. But they don't,
> I do think that a market mechanism will allow operators to get number resources, in an environment where addresses are scarce and the RIRs can't help.  I have yet to see anyone suggest a realistic alternative.  

This is hardly surprising given the impossibly restrictive conditions that you seem to demand for terms like "realistic" and "pragmatic" -- at least when they're used to refer to non-market mechanisms.  

> As for "status" as "chattel", those are your words not mine.
> Contrary to the common prejudice, not all advocates of an address market are laissez faire free-market advocates.  I happen to believe strongly in the value of pragmatic regulation.  Of course, regulation only works when it is carried out by an agency authorized to do so (and with the power to enforce). 

Thanks for the sharing this very interesting vision. I can't help noting that your definition of pragmatic regulation seems to completely discount the possibility of  individual "self-regulation," while your efforts to promote a "policy-free" registry model would effectively eliminate any possibility of sustaining a peer-based governance system at the community/industry or any other level. I can only guess about what kind of "authorization" you might consider to be legitimate, and how your feelings about legitimacy would be affected by the actual exercise of enforcement/compulsory power, which would seem to be the first/last/only resort that your preferred arrangements would permit. 

We may all be invested by God and Nature with the inalienable right to believe that 2=2=5, but anyone who chooses to exercise that right (or to live among those who insist on doing so) must to prepared to pay the price of that belief over and over forever. The world is probably not going to become more accommodating of that view no matter how long you wait or how fervently you believe. Granted, that's just my own opinion. 

> In any case, I'd welcome a conversation on the topic of addresses as property. But this wasn't actually the topic of my previous message.

I would not, any more than I'd welcome a conversation about the practical merits of slavery. It's a waste of time for everyone involved.
That said, I am usually incapable of passively observing such conversations once they have exceeded a certain nonsense threshold (especially when "my neighborhood" would be first casualty/fatality if ever such toxic self-delusions came to be widely accepted). But please -- please -- let's not go there.
>> and your attempts to shoehorn the policy discussion into the narrow terms of your own ideology will indeed be in vain.
> I appreciate your attempt to leverage my own terminology, but it illustrates that you've missed the point.
> There are those on PPML that apparently think ARIN's primary role is policy.  But some of us rather think that ARIN's primary role is registration. (You know, the second "R" in RIR.)  

The idea that any meaningful "registration" function for invisible, ephemeral, infinitely portable resources could be productively maintained for any length of time solely through the uncoordinated (i.e., "policy-free") profit-seeking behavior of anonymous "sovereign" resource holders has appx. the same cash value as the belief that 2+2=5. Or better yet, 2+2 = 50% of annual industry profits.

No doubt the registry function could be maintained by the judicious application of the kind of muscular enforcement power that you seem to favor, but the price of going that route would be absolute L0-9 vertical partitioning along (all) national boundaries. Even so, within the bounds of those newly erected national garden walls you could revel in the vastly expanded private freedoms that you originally set out to acquire, right?

> Aligned with this latter perspective is a respect for the de facto "sovereignty" of operators that ARIN supports.  My contention is that ARIN has no right to legislate and no power to regulate.

Why should that surprise anyone? You have already declared your de facto sovereignty. 

Nevertheless, I encourage everyone else to think twice (and then some) before jumping on this doomed bandwagon: 

Despite what some might want you to believe, extremism in the individual pursuit of infinite private liberty tends to have the practical effect of undermining liberty for all. As I wrote last week, If you still remain convinced that a self-governing industry group can remain functional even after members have renounced all means of coordinating or even observing the "public" behavior of other industry members, you don't need to take my word for it -- get in touch with any current member of a functioning "free banking" system and ask them what they think. To get to the nearest one to the ARIN community, all you have to do is set your time machine controls to "1862" ...

> Which brings me back to the original issue:  If we wish ARIN to prohibit something, the burden is on us to demonstrate why and how.  I see no basis for prohibiting ASN transfers, unless somebody can explain why it causes harm.  I'm personally skeptical of the value in transferring ASNs, but that's no reason to object.

Already covered.



> Cheers,
> -Benson
>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>> This is incredibly backwards thinking. If somebody in the community wishes to do something and you wish to prohibit it, the burden of justification is yours. 
>>> ARIN is here to serve, not vainly attempt to enforce ideology (or whim). I'd prefer that we just do our job, maintain an accurate registry, and record transfers when they happen. 
>>> I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond to this...
>>> -Benson
>>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 18:59, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> I would turn this around… I don't believe anyone has presented
>>>> a strong argument for allowing ASN transfers and I do not believe
>>>> that the community would benefit from such an action.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list