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

[Jimmy Hess]

On 6/14/12, Tom Vest <tvest at eyeconomics.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> [Milton L Mueller] Sure...
>>> [is it] 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.

Well, in a policy discussion, that is begging the question. That's not
an accepted fact.

WHY  is it proposed that everyone who operates the internet
should pave the way for "post-allocation" services?


If by that you mean something other than return of unused resources to
the RIR free pool, and re-allocation by the RIR to  a new organization which
has applied for resources:
Allocation of resources by community operated registries such as RIRs is the
procedure that has been standardized.

All resources are allocated, even the legacy ones are allocated, and
the allocations
have various strings that the allocation is to be kept,  only the
duration during
which the resources are required and used for networks.

This method of resource assignment has been successful,  although it
will not be able to prevent exhaustion,  it at least provides a
measure of fairness in the assignment of resources,  better than
economic methods of distribution,  rather than allowing the highest
bidder to buy up all slots in the IP registration database, and scalp
them /  sell them at a price  made possible through artificial
scarcity.


>> [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for
>> others, it will make little difference either way.
>> There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests
>> on this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we
>> don't have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism
>> in the social sciences to agree on that simple fact.

No, we just have to try to reach consensus on the matter of the policy proposal.

Which is by definition either a degree of homogenization of interests
on the matter,
or of adjustments to the matter / proposal so that the number and degree
of conflicts are insignificant..


I am still opposed  to PP172,  and this latest discussion is no more compelling
than the rationale statement

--
-JH