<div dir="auto">Well, I am not sure welfare program apply here, ISP business ensures fair competition(mostly) and taking out ip market alone(and even with assumption it will work) will not let the weak the survive.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And I am not sure we should let the weak survive, end user will benefits from good isp remain and bad isp dead. Like any market.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">No one is claiming anything here, everyone is paying a fair market price for what they are using in a scare market. Owning an asset does not constitute a crime. Just because you no longer get land for free from the west, doesn’t mean anyone today leasing you a house in Bay Area evil. Capitalism rewards those who come first, in any market.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><<a href="mailto:scott@solarnetone.org">scott@solarnetone.org</a>>于2021年9月3日 周五下午12:45写道：<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">There is but one stream from which to drink, which belongs to everyone. <br>
We simply ensure that the weakest may also drink, by preventing the <br>
strong from damming the stream, and claiming all the water to be theirs.<br>
<br>
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Lu Heng wrote:<br>
<br>
> Taking out the market and middle man, have one central body distribute all<br>
> resources and reclaim them when not needed.<br>
> <br>
> Wasn’t humanity spend entire 20 century with millions life dead to proof it<br>
> won’t work?<br>
> <br>
> <<a href="mailto:scott@solarnetone.org" target="_blank">scott@solarnetone.org</a>>于2021年9月3日 周五下午12:03写道：<br>
> +1<br>
><br>
> Agreed. The middleman with no infrastructure business model is<br>
> by<br>
> it's very nature parasitic.<br>
><br>
> Scott<br>
><br>
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Fernando Frediani wrote:<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > Surely people benefiting from IP leasing will keep trying to<br>
> make it<br>
> > 'normal', acceptable and part of day by day as if these<br>
> middleman were<br>
> > facilitating something for the good of the internet while it<br>
> is the<br>
> > opposite.<br>
> > This practice serves exclusively to the financial benefit of<br>
> those who lease<br>
> > (but are not building any Internet Infrastructure) and of<br>
> course to the<br>
> > middleman not the lessee.<br>
> ><br>
> > How can it be beneficial to lessee that has to pay more they<br>
> would have to<br>
> > spend if those very same resources were recovered by the RIR<br>
> and<br>
> > re-distributed directly to that same organization ?<br>
> ><br>
> > It doesn't matter much how the scenario changed in the past<br>
> and recent<br>
> > years. There are principles and fairness to be observed and<br>
> they should not<br>
> > change in order to adjust the interest of these few ones who<br>
> speculate a<br>
> > resource that doesn't belong to them and wasn't justified for<br>
> that propose.<br>
> > It is just easier the RIR to recover them and do the right<br>
> thing, for harder<br>
> > and stressful it can be it is the right thing to be done.<br>
> ><br>
> > I don't mean to sound rude to those who disagree with me, but<br>
> I really hope<br>
> > RIRs in general revoke as much as possible addresses clearly<br>
> being used for<br>
> > leasing where the resource holder only speculates them,<br>
> doesn't build any<br>
> > Internet infrastructure and where in many cases don't even<br>
> exist<br>
> > connectivity between the current resource holder and the<br>
> lessee and<br>
> > re-allocate them to those who truly justify. This has nothing<br>
> to do with<br>
> > interfere in the business of that resource holder.<br>
> ><br>
> > Often those supporting this misuse of IP resources try to<br>
> paint a picture<br>
> > that those resources are organization's property and the RIR<br>
> should be<br>
> > unable to do anything about that. Not being a irrevocable<br>
> properly<br>
> > organizations own explanations and clarity about how they use<br>
> it according<br>
> > to the what is in the best interest of all those who developed<br>
> and agreed<br>
> > the current rules in place and the organization who has the<br>
> duty to inspect<br>
> > that. Regardless the commercial model of an organization it<br>
> must adhere to<br>
> > the current rules and contract they previously signed, not the<br>
> other way<br>
> > round.<br>
> ><br>
> > Also the understanding that a LIR leases IP addresses is quiet<br>
> wrong. If<br>
> > they are build Internet infrastructure, provide connectivity<br>
> and charge<br>
> > administrative fees for the addresses they allocate to that<br>
> customer there<br>
> > is nothing wrong with it.<br>
> > I personally can understand the permanent Transfer of<br>
> resources and that has<br>
> > been a more natural and fair movement and why community agreed<br>
> on that on<br>
> > most RIRs, but despite some beautiful picture painted IP<br>
> leasing brings no<br>
> > good to lessee and to the Internet if things can be done in<br>
> the proper way.<br>
> ><br>
> > Regards<br>
> > Fernando<br>
> ><br>
> > On 02/09/2021 17:39, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > In message <058401d7a013$7797d160$66c77420$@<a href="http://iptrading.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iptrading.com</a>>,<br>
> > "Mike Burns" <<a href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank">mike@iptrading.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > We tried the method you've espoused below for thirty years and<br>
> > the result were a huge amount of wasted address space. Once<br>
> the market<br>
> > was adopted, many of those addresses found a useful place in<br>
> the routing<br>
> > table.<br>
> ><br>
> > Well, it's sort of a Catch-22. Mike, you're absolutely right<br>
> that once<br>
> > there was a free market, a lot of stuff came off the shelves<br>
> and started<br>
> > to be used productively. But can any of us say with<br>
> confidence that once<br>
> > there was a free market, a lot of this commodity (IPv4) that<br>
> was sitting<br>
> > on shelves didn't just stay there -because- of the open and<br>
> free market...<br>
> > because the "owners" of those blocks effectively became<br>
> speculators, just<br>
> > waiting arond for the scarcity to become more acute, and for<br>
> the price to<br>
> > go up?<br>
> ><br>
> > (I confess that I never in my life took an economics class,<br>
> but it seems<br>
> > to me that the entire field is chock full of head-scratching<br>
> conundrums<br>
> > like this... situation where you are damned if you do and<br>
> damned if you<br>
> > don't.)<br>
> ><br>
> > The free pool era is dying, let's put a fork in it as quickly<br>
> as<br>
> > possible We've seen the corruption engendered by the bait of<br>
> the<br>
> > free pool in multiple registries now, including our own.<br>
> ><br>
> > Just curious Mike... Does this opinion on your part extend<br>
> also to IPv6?<br>
> ><br>
> > Your old-fashioned method of address distribution would get<br>
> some<br>
> > addresses to those in need, I will concede that. However, so<br>
> will<br>
> > leasing addresses, with that demonstration of need being the<br>
> lease<br>
> > payment. Will you concede that those who pay to lease<br>
> addresses need<br>
> > them?<br>
> ><br>
> > Even if nobody else does, I certainly will. But of course<br>
> that's not the<br>
> > only issue.<br>
> ><br>
> > The current Cloud Innovation v. AFRINIC thing is in some ways<br>
> confusing as<br>
> > hell because it has brought to a head -multiple- long-standing<br>
> issues that<br>
> > have then gotten all tangled up with one another, making it<br>
> difficult for<br>
> > anybody to tease apart the various separate issues.<br>
> ><br>
> > One of these is what might be called "equity", i.e. the social<br>
> desire to<br>
> > help Africa, a continent and a people who have been on the<br>
> receiving end<br>
> > of so much exploitation and malevolent evil, over the<br>
> centuries, at the<br>
> > hands of others.<br>
> ><br>
> > Another issue is the right and proper role of RIRs.<br>
> ><br>
> > Last but not leas (and perhaps the most troubling and most<br>
> difficult to<br>
> > crack open in a way that does not merely reveal our individual<br>
> biases) is<br>
> > the question of the proper role of what I will just call<br>
> "speculators"<br>
> > within any free market.<br>
> ><br>
> > Contrary to what some might say, I think that when it comes to<br>
> IPv4 addresse<br>
> > s<br>
> > at least, it most certainly -is- possible to distinguish<br>
> "speculators" from<br>
> > actual and legitimate end users and/or legitimate brokers &<br>
> middlemen such<br>
> > as yourself. As I understand it, the current system requires<br>
> people to<br>
> > document their equipment purchases. No equipment purchases? <br>
> You're almost<br>
> > certainly just a speculator.<br>
> ><br>
> > So then the question becomes two-fold: (1) Do we want<br>
> speculators in this<br>
> > marketplace? and (2) Is there any actually feasible way to<br>
> keep them out<br>
> > of the "free" market even if the collective "we" firmly<br>
> decided that we<br>
> > wanted to do so?<br>
> ><br>
> > I personally don't have answers to any of these questions. I<br>
> would only<br>
> > offer up the observation that I am aware of at least a few<br>
> speculators at<br>
> > this moment in time, and it would be an understatement for me<br>
> to say that<br>
> > their actions seem to me to be both glaringly untoward and<br>
> also unhelpful.<br>
> > But if you ask me IN GENERAL whether "speculators" are a<br>
> necessary and even<br>
> > useful component of a free market, I cannot say they are not. <br>
> And it seems<br>
> > I may not be alone in leaving open this possibility:<br>
> ><br>
> ><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/09/the-theranos-implosion-" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/09/the-theranos-implosion-</a><br>
> a<br>
> > nd-robert-shiller-on-short-selling-and-complete-markets/<br>
> ><br>
> > Regards,<br>
> > rfg<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > ARIN-PPML<br>
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> > <a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> > Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> ARIN-PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> --<br>
> Kind regards.<br>
> Lu<br>
> <br>
> <br>
></blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>--<br>Kind regards.<br>Lu<br><br></div></div></div>