On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
