[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources (John Santos)

Tue Jun 12 18:38:03 EDT 2012

Having followed the list discussion thus far, I am totally opposed to this
proposal 172 ....and  with reference to John Santos' remarks below .*"See
the template we needed to fill out in order to receive our initial legacy
assignment back in the early 1990s"*.........Maybe John should digitize the
template.
Rudi Daniel

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
> >
> > > if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which
> > > reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use
> > > address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all
> > > ears, please regale me.
> >
> > [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of
> > this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in
> > a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN
> > holds rights over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the
> > proposed definition because of that.
>
> This is a strawman.  That is not the only or even the common reason why
> at least some people oppose this proposal.  1) It codifies practices and
> applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous
> practice, in that requires a written agreement.  2) It extends the scope
> ot "legacy" status well beyond the current de facto situation.  3) It
> ignores that despite the lack or a written RSA, there was an understanding
> between ARIN's predecessors and address holders that the addresses were
> to be used for network numbering and management, were issued on a needs
> basis, and were to be returned or reallocated if the holder's needs
> changed.  See the template we needed to fill out in order to receive our
> initial legacy assignment back in the early 1990s.  (I only have this on
> paper so can't link to it.)
>
> The "definition" in this proposal is actually policy in sheep's clothing.
>
> Opposed.
>
> --
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:51:33 +0000
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com>, "arin-ppml at arin.net"
>        <ARIN-PPML at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section
>        8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy   resources
> Message-ID:
>        <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Jo, glad to see you back away from the "psychotic" remark.
>
> As for confusion about what property is, it is well accepted among
> political economists that there can be property rights in intangible
> assets. A property right is defined in economics as the right to exclude,
> the right to use and the benefit from the use, and the right to trade or
> assign to others.
>
> So to shift slightly to another context, you think that telephone number
> portability plans, which facilitated competition by giving end users a
> property right in their number, allowing them to move them from carrier to
> carrier, was a bad thing? After all, a telephone number "allows you to
> receive [calls] and for others to find you" and thus conforms exactly to
> your definition of an address.
>
> By the way, whether the community can take away property rights has
> nothing to do with whether the rights are property rights or whether it is
> a good thing to assign them in the first place. E.g., in certain countries
> tanks claiming the mandate from "the community" can arrive at your door and
> expropriate your land. Doesn't mean your land isn't property, doesn't mean
> it's the right thing to do.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > I think that this conversation demonstrates some deep confusion over
> > what property is.
> >
> > Property: are those tangible assets that you own. You know, the hardware
> > you use to provide the service on. You bought them.  This stuff is not
> > unlike a house, or perhaps one could argue, a mobile home.
> >
> > Address: is that thing you get from the community which allows you to
> > receive mail, and for others to find you. And the community can vote to
> > change it. And does, not often, but perhaps more often than many people
> > expect.
> >
> > I find it totally amusing that "allows you to receive mail, and for
> > others to find you" amazingly sums up both the real uses of physical and
> > IP address ;-)  But neither one is owned, and both can be changed or
> > even taken away if the community votes to do so.
> >
> > --
> > Jo Rhett
> > Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet
> > projects.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:54:39 +0000
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: John Santos <JOHN at egh.com>
> Cc: "'arin-ppml at arin.net'" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM
>        Section 2 - Legacy Resources
> Message-ID:
>        <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218776E at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > > [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context
> > > of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy
> > > resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have
> > > insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources
> > > and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that.
> >
> > This is a strawman.  That is not the only or even the common reason why
> > at least some people oppose this proposal.  1) It codifies practices and
> > applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous
> > practice, in that requires a written agreement.
>
> [Milton L Mueller] huh? ARIN has no authority other than its written
> agreements.
>
> >  2) It extends the scope
> > ot "legacy" status well beyond the current de facto situation.
>
> [Milton L Mueller] debatable.
>
> >  3) It ignores that despite the lack or a written RSA, there was an
> > understanding between ARIN's predecessors and address holders that the
> > addresses were to be used for network numbering and management, were
> > issued on a needs basis, and were to be returned or reallocated if the
> > holder's needs changed.
>
> [Milton L Mueller] utterly false, factually. The legacy allocations made
> in the 1980s did not carry any such implications, you are reading current
> policies and obligations backwards into history.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 31
> *****************************************
>

-- 

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
**
*
*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120612/d040c8ba/attachment.htm>