When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops working.
At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be capitalistic and all we need
is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws in policy to keep the big guys in
check. 2014-14 moves in this direction. We certainly don't need Anti-Trust
equivalent policies on the low end of allocations.
Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is radical and
if implemented the world would somehow end. I disagree. I have recently been
advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN Minimum block size allocation
and my proposed 2014-18 would have done that. A proposal to do a whole lot
more than I have proposed - not only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but
tweaked, improved, and passed - as ripe-604. Are the folks who proposed and
voted to pass ripe-604 heretics too? I think not. I think they realized that
needs testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so they
passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.
I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I would start
at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just trying to remove the
needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum and don't need a minimum block
more than once per year. This would be a pretty small change to current policy
and if advocating for that makes me a heretic then so be it! My two cents.
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: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
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.
