[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:01:00AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
> No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system.
> That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests.
yup... said that earlier.
> And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides
decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the policies
under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps? this is where
I suspect there will be legal intervention to instruct/enlighten network and
> > If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away...
> This is hyperbole. The RIRs are not people, they have no desires, other perhaps than that of self-perpetuation.
absent people - RIRs are an empty shell... :)
right... their v. there... sorry about that.
> I haven't heard _anyone_, active RIR member or otherwise, suggest that a right to _use_ space should be rescinded. The only thing I've heard even the most vehement pro-reclamation people argue in favor of is reclamation of _unused_ space.
definition of "used" is not particularly clear and rarely has been.
the most pragmatic has been ... "when a recognized authority has delegated
the address space" -- when that was Postel, or SRI, or NSI, or ARIN, or
Dupont, or Rice University, or PCH, or ep.net... doesn't really matter.
it was a recognized authority. when one authority disputes the rights of
another, there is really one one venue for resolution...
> > I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts.
> And ultimately, the courts uphold community standards. Which is what the public expects. If the community uses the public policy process to set a standard that you cannot meet, it's very _very_ unlikely that a court would side with you in the long term. The community we live in generally believes that paint shouldn't have lead in it, and cars should have seatbelts, and people shouldn't beat their children when they get frustrated, and although each of those things was deemed a god-given right at one time, the courts would not side with someone who did any of them, anymore.
which is where we end up w/ the doctrine of eminent domain.
and legacy/historical values do have some recognition in courts...
my Ford Model T doesn't have seat belts... :)
> So I think the two questions here are whether you really have a grievance (I don't believe you do, since you haven't described a problem that many of the rest of us wouldn't also face), and if so, whether and how you can better your lot (and I think the answer to that is to participate in the public policy process and help establish community norms that you're comfortable with, rather than hoping that a court will buck the tide).
of course I don't have a grievance... thats your allergic reaction :)
as to your point of changing policy - sure, i could do that and i hope
people become engaged... HOWEVER - I am not persuaded that a single policy
framework will be applicable to all users of IP space... so n matter what
current ARIN policy is - its not likely to be an exact match to the number
resource policies of DuPont, or DoD, or Ohio State, or Google, or Nintendo,
Toyota, PCH, or Bills Bait & Sushi. Nor can it ever be.
Of course ARIN has every right to maintain its database (whois) in any way
that it sees fit and how its members dictate - but unless the rights of
all players are acknowledged/respected - I think ARIN is in danger of losing
And that would be a great loss.