<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Apr 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div><div><div>On Apr 12, 2011, at 6:47 AM, Bill Darte wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format --><p><font size="2">
How do you feel about the Constitution? 200+ years old...lots of things have changed since that was written....is it too irrelevant because its old..or are the principles upon which it was written still as pertinent today as ever?<br></font></p></div></blockquote><div><div>Bill, do you really think this is a reasonable comparison? On one hand: a document that has withstood 200+ years of change, written by representatives from all the colonies, enshrining the basic structure of our government and individual liberties. On the other hand: a document written 15 years ago, by a handful of people, expressing administrative choices based on then-current technology limitations.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>I think the comparison is perfectly valid. The age of the document is not particularly relevant.</div><div><br></div><div>If this had come up in 1805, one could actually have made a similar statement about said constitution.</div><div>After all, the constitution was written by 33 people and, for example, such things as the electoral</div><div>college were very much about the "then-current technology limitations".</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><div><div><br></div><div><div>On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>I don't think that requiring need to receive resources will decrease the size<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>of the market or the number of participating sellers.<br><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>Decreasing buyers generally places deflationary pressure on markets, not<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>inflationary.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>Higher prices generally increase the number of sellers. This is a good thing, given a scarce supply and ongoing need.</div></div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>An interesting perspective. So your argument here is that I should actually think that making things cost more</div><div>is good for the community. Yeah, I'm not so convinced of that fact.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><div><div>If ARIN doesn't enable the highest market prices then sellers will go elsewhere. The benefits of working with ARIN need to out-weigh the costs, if we wish to preserve accuracy in ARIN's whois data.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>Also not convinced of that. These higher prices must be balanced against risk. It may be that the buyers are</div><div>more willing to pay those higher prices in a risk-free environment than elsewhere.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>