On 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.
This is a distinction without a difference. The fact that IP number policy does not have the force of government regulation doesn’t change the fact that circumventing community adopted policy for your own greed is tantamount to stealing someone’s furniture. Arguing that because policy doesn’t carry the force of law, we shouldn’t have policy is not, IMHO, what you want to do here. That basically serves as a request for real regulators to come in and develop number resource regulation in place of our lack of policy. At its core, the internet is built on cooperation among the various entities connecting to the network. That cooperation is governed by rules built through a community consensus process. While I agree the process isn’t perfect, I would argue that it has worked far better than any legislative processes I have observed and that we probably prefer to keep it. >> 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? > >> 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? I think he was more talking about Mike B. and Steven R., than you, Brandon. > 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? It could be. I’m OK with that. ;-) Owen _______________________________________________ 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.
