[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Matthew Petach]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Brandon Ross <bross at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>  I cannot absolutely prevent you from stealing my furniture
>> if you so desire.  However, that doesn't mean I'm not going
>> to put a lock on my front door to at least make it harder for
>> you, and make it patently clear that you're doing so against
>> my express desires.
>>
>
> As has been mentioned here before, stealing furnature is a criminal
> offence, writing a contract giving exclusive rights to address space is
> not.  That's a pretty crucial difference.  If breaking and entering and
> stealing furnature were legal, the small help of a lock on my porch screen
> door would make little difference to a "bad actor".  Locks keep honest
> people honest, but if an activity is not widely agreed to be immoral, locks
> won't help.


The only way an action becomes a criminal offense
is if we bring the government in for enforcement.
Thus far, as a community, we've been doing our
best to not reach out to governments, which means
nothing within the realm of number policy can ever
be a criminal offense.  I would think the community
would still consider some of the number resource
activities to be of a nature equivalent to what would
be called a criminal activity, even if it does not hold
that official designation according to the laws of the
land.

(That is, if I were to willfully announce IP space
registered to someone else, the community would
designate that as "wrong" and consider it to be
a criminal act, even though no law of the land
says that 32-bit address space has the same
level of consideration as property.)
Putting it another way--it is perfectly legal for
me to hijack  your IP space; there is no law
that disallows it.  Doesn't make it right according
to our community.  So, arguing that one case
is a criminal offense while the other is not a
criminal offense does not make the non-criminal
offense any less wrong; it just means we don't
yet have a law on the books defining it as such.


>

> I'll ask plainly; for everyone voting for needs-free
> transfers; would you still vote that way, *if in doing
> so, you were guaranteed to not be able to obtain
> any number resources under the new policy*?
>

I don't have any address resources now, and I don't ever plan on having any
> in the future, so sure, why not?


My apologies; I misunderstood what your
position was--and I thank you for your
feedback to my question.


>
>
>  If not, I would claim your votes are not guided by
>> the good of the community; they're guided by
>> self-interest, and a hope and desire that you can
>> get something for less effort than you can by following
>> the current guidelines.
>>
>
> Oh really?
>
> Much like Owen, I have a nice little business of helping small
> organizations navigate the ARIN process to get address space.  It's not a
> majority of my income, but it's pretty nice and easy work for me.  If needs
> basis goes away, guess what else goes away?
>
> Even though Owen and I are on opposite sides of this coversation, I can
> guarantee you right now that both of us, without fail, are arguing solely
> for what we think is best for the community.
>
> It's quite ironic that I would make more money by arguing on your side of
> the issue, isn't it?
>
> Or maybe my conspiracy is to get v4 to run out faster so I can make more
> money on v6 deployment?


I apologize; I meant the "you" to be addressed to the
broader community, not to a particular individual.  I was
not aware of your activity in this arena, and it is good
background to be aware of; but the statement was
addressed to the plural "you" rather than the singular
"you"--dratted English, not giving us a distinctly plural
form of "you" we can use to make it explicit.

I *will* note that I'm surprised--if you have no interest
in obtaining number resources, what would make you
vote one way vs the other, if the outcome is exactly
the same for you either way?



>
>
>  I'm sorry.  I'm going to start saying things that
>> will offend people, and I'll end up with a bunch
>> of pissed off people if I continue.
>>
>
> I believe you already have.
>
> Please only question my motives when you have evidence.


Would it help to say that I was questioning
everyone's motives, not just yours?  Or would
that simply make my sin that much more
inclusive?  :/

Thanks for the attitude correction--sometimes
it's good to be smacked in the head when I get
too fired up and start making overly broad
generalizations.

Thanks!

Matt


>
>
> --
> Brandon Ross                                      Yahoo & AIM:
>  BrandonNRoss
> +1-404-635-6667                                                ICQ:
>  2269442
>                                                          Skype:
>  brandonross
> Schedule a meeting:  http://www.doodle.com/bross
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140611/3f6522a8/attachment.htm>