Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a
Laissez-faire model. While this might make some Libertarians have wet
dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth
operates this way.
What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the catch-22
of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely controlled
by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but if you have
a market that has zero government controls it immediately devolves into
a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of Capitalism.
In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government
tinkering.
I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people. The Tea
Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand it.
ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are
going to get. Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the
last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on
automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have
competition in the automobile market.
Ted
On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion. I wish
ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner. Then as long as
an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed
as long as there are sellers. There is no needs testing in that model just
supply and demand and the ability to pay. How do we change to the Capitalistic
model from what we got now?
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to respond to
my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists in a
capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.
I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest debate on
this issue. What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak
arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones. So I am not going to waste
much more time with you on this.
But I will say that your comment:
" If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start
denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, replaced
by domain names that are easy to remember. The average English speaking adult
knows about 50,000 English words. There's over 100 million .com domain names
registered at this point. We have far and away exceeded the number of English
.com one word domain names that an average person would know.
Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names. Oh sure, you can still
register new .com domain names that are nonsense like fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up
elaborate long sentences like thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but
neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name. They are, in fact, harder to
remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make "easy to remember"
There
On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Thanks for your comments! Actually the total number of possible .com
permutations is limited too. IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both
just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.
Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is
still the only way to access most of the Internet. While ARIN has resources to
allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the
size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any
resources.
Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation. Regardless of any policy,
ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year. If .com domain names
were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs
.com domain name requests?
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it
isn’t OK to deny an Org the Minimum IP allocation. They are both Internet
resources.
The analogy seems faulty to me. The number space is finite (and in the case of
v4, not very large). The name space in any given registry is admittedly not
infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH
repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and
usually a wordlike thing in some natural language. There are, however, lots of
registries (more all the time!
Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to
the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001
and have rather similar registration rules. So, there is an argument in favour
of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name
case.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
