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

[Tom Vest]

On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> Milton,
> 
> If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points you
> make below? I sometimes interpret your reference to ARIN as if it is a
> stand alone company that is getting in the way of competition. Is this an
> error on my part? As you know, ARIN is the collection of members and even
> opinions that are presented here on this list, and not an independent
> decision maker. Even you are part of ARIN and influence its behavior.

Hi Dan, 

Pardon the interruption, but I think that your first question here is worth highlighting.
One of the essential, defining features of the school of economic thought with which Milton is associated is "methodological individualism," which is the view that nothing "good" (from one's own point of view, i.e., "what I want") can be meaningfully explained or rationalized, and nothing "bad" (from anyone else's point of view, i.e., "what you/they reject") can be credibly justified, by reference to any collective entity (group, state, country, "the community," etc.). Methodological individualists don't deny the existence of groupings as such, but tend to attribute the actions that others commonly associate with such collectives to the influence/machinations of the most powerful individual members within such groups. For the true methodological individualist, the blanket rejection of such "collective explanations" extends not only to current goings-on, but also to all of the accumulated past actions and decisions that have resulted in the laws, rules, norms, conventions etc. that effective determine what's legal/illegal, appropriate/inappropriate, etc. today. By implication, no rule, law, institution, or norm has ever been "legitimate" at any point in time unless, at that point in time, it enjoyed the universal approval of everyone who was subject to its effects -- and no rule, law, institution, or norm that currently exists can be deemed "legitimate" now unless it has continuously enjoyed that same universal approval at all points in time leading up to the present day. Ergo, today's "so-called democracies" are, in principle, not much better, more legitimate, or today's "so-called autocratic regimes." 

I thought that this particular question deserved calling out because methodological individualism is one of the most important factors that have caused institutions like the RIRs to become an increasingly attractive target for certain (mostly academic) traditions. For the last century or so, academics whose perspectives are informed by MI have devoted appx. 100% of their time and effort to criticizing their arch-nemesis, "big government"  -- which tends to makes such fields very crowded, competitive, and probably more than a little "stale" to work in.  Recently, however, they seemed to have discovered that there is a "ready market" for applying the same MI-based critiques to other kinds of institutions. To get an idea of what this will likely mean for future RIR policy debates, just reread some of the old MI classics and replace the terms "democracy" vs. "autocracy" with "consensus-based" vs. "top-down decision making." 

For those who are interested, here's couple of references written by the leading champions of methodological individualism:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Democracy

Regards, 

TV

> So if we replace the word ARIN, I read your comments to say that it is
> advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content provider
> networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave the
> way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing
> registrars. 
> 
> My question would be why? As with any value proposition, do the benefits
> they receive outweigh the price they have to pay? As Chris Engel pointed
> out better than I ever could, the value is not in the numbers themselves
> but in the context in which they can be used. All the networks around the
> globe benefit from the central coordination of the RIR system as a
> mechanism to participate in the Internet.
> 
> Because some address holders or individuals wish to trade IP address space
> for money, it is not done without a cost. To operate under such a model,
> those costs are pushed out to all those entities listed above that
> currently benefit from the central coordination. Why should all the
> network operators across the Internet incur the costs of having to refer
> to multiple regristrar systems and the inevitable disputes that will
> result beyond those that already occur in the current model?
> 
> It is only my opinion but the property argument is misleading. Some are
> being led to believe that they can pay xxx amount of dollars for an IP
> block and it will work across the Internet. Those dollars spent, or even a
> US court order do not guarantee global connectivity to the Internet.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a pretty large portion of the
> Internet that does not care about what a US judge might decide. I think we
> really need to weigh the costs and the benefits of the road we are heading
> down.  
> 
> Dan Alexander
> Speaking only as myself
> 
> 
> On 6/12/12 9:22 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> <cut>
> 
>>> If ARIN, for
>>> some reason, ceased to provide such a high degree of utility.... if for
>>> example it operated in a fashion contrary to what most operators
>>> considered useful, it would cease to have influence as reference source.
>> 
>> [Milton L Mueller] Yep. And believe it or not, that is basically the same
>> point I was trying to make with respect to ARIN trying to use its control
>> of the registry database in a way that is perceived to be (or is in fact)
>> contrary to the interests of a coalition of legacy holders, operators who
>> want to communicate with them, brokers, and others. Really, that was all
>> I was pointing out. If ARIN wants to be the authoritative, universal
>> reference it can't play fast and loose with the power that comes with
>> people using it for that purpose.
>> 
>> Perhaps the only point where we differ is that I believe it is advisable
>> for ARIN and other RIRs to concentrate almost exclusively on the registry
>> function and pave the way for competition and diversity in
>> post-allocation services, which means that they should be open to
>> figuring out a way to interact with other registrars, and that means
>> being totally devoted to actually listing who uniquely holds an address
>> block and not making that listing contingent upon maintaining control of
>> various things or conformity to ancillary policies.
> 
> </cut>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.