You believe that augmenting a natural scarcity with a artificial one born
of resource hoarding will lower consumer prices and improve quality? If
so, I have some bridges for sale that you may be interested in.
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Cheken Chetty wrote:
I agree with Lu, while some of the statements about the cons against
capitalism is true, there are various pros for it as well such as the
encouragement of competition, lower consumer prices and better product
quality and they do in some cases outweigh the bad in my opinion.
Regards
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, 08:09 Lu Heng, <h...@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
<sc...@solarnetone.org>于2021年9月3日 周五下午1:12写道：
> No one is claiming anything here, everyone is paying a
fair market price for
> what they are using in a scare market. Owning an asset
does not constitute a
> crime.
Being allocated IP addresses from a RIR does not
constitute ownership of
an asset, under any circumstances.
Who decides this? All those asset purchase agreement wasn’t signed out
of blue.
Number itself might not constitute asset. However registration in an
unique database surely is.
> Just because you no longer get land for free from the
west, doesn’t
> mean anyone today leasing you a house in Bay Area evil.
Capitalism rewards
> those who come first, in any market.
Capitalism, from my experience, rewards many of the worst
qualities in
mankind; greed, selfishness, and profit over all things.
Unfettered, it
will be civilization's undoing, ecologically. Meanwhile,
the strong will
simply continue to steal from the weak, and claim
themselves pioneers.
That is an accusation without base. Rich must be stealing from the
poor, a perfect communist revolution quote.
Most of market are started by pioneers—and some of them are become
very rich in the process—bill gates, Steve Jobs, for example.
You experience clearly is not shared in this society, which form of
society you are advocating? Capitalism can be flawed except it is the
best mankind have discover so far.
>
>
> <sc...@solarnetone.org>于2021年9月3日
周五下午12:45写道：
> There is but one stream from which to drink, which
belongs to
> everyone.
> We simply ensure that the weakest may also drink,
by preventing
> the
> strong from damming the stream, and claiming all
the water to be
> theirs.
>
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Lu Heng wrote:
>
> > Taking out the market and middle man, have one
central body
> distribute all
> > resources and reclaim them when not needed.
> >
> > Wasn’t humanity spend entire 20 century with
millions life
> dead to proof it
> > won’t work?
> >
> > <sc...@solarnetone.org>于2021年9月3日
周五下午12:03写道：
> > +1
> >
> > Agreed. The middleman with no
infrastructure business
> model is
> > by
> > it's very nature parasitic.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Surely people benefiting from IP leasing
will keep
> trying to
> > make it
> > > 'normal', acceptable and part of day by
day as if
> these
> > middleman were
> > > facilitating something for the good of
the internet
> while it
> > is the
> > > opposite.
> > > This practice serves exclusively to the
financial
> benefit of
> > those who lease
> > > (but are not building any Internet
Infrastructure) and
> of
> > course to the
> > > middleman not the lessee.
> > >
> > > How can it be beneficial to lessee that
has to pay
> more they
> > would have to
> > > spend if those very same resources were
recovered by
> the RIR
> > and
> > > re-distributed directly to that same
organization ?
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter much how the scenario
changed in the
> past
> > and recent
> > > years. There are principles and fairness
to be
> observed and
> > they should not
> > > change in order to adjust the interest
of these few
> ones who
> > speculate a
> > > resource that doesn't belong to them and
wasn't
> justified for
> > that propose.
> > > It is just easier the RIR to recover
them and do the
> right
> > thing, for harder
> > > and stressful it can be it is the right
thing to be
> done.
> > >
> > > I don't mean to sound rude to those who
disagree with
> me, but
> > I really hope
> > > RIRs in general revoke as much as
possible addresses
> clearly
> > being used for
> > > leasing where the resource holder only
speculates
> them,
> > doesn't build any
> > > Internet infrastructure and where in
many cases don't
> even
> > exist
> > > connectivity between the current
resource holder and
> the
> > lessee and
> > > re-allocate them to those who truly
justify. This has
> nothing
> > to do with
> > > interfere in the business of that
resource holder.
> > >
> > > Often those supporting this misuse of IP
resources try
> to
> > paint a picture
> > > that those resources are organization's
property and
> the RIR
> > should be
> > > unable to do anything about that. Not
being a
> irrevocable
> > properly
> > > organizations own explanations and
clarity about how
> they use
> > it according
> > > to the what is in the best interest of
all those who
> developed
> > and agreed
> > > the current rules in place and the
organization who
> has the
> > duty to inspect
> > > that. Regardless the commercial model of
an
> organization it
> > must adhere to
> > > the current rules and contract they
previously signed,
> not the
> > other way
> > > round.
> > >
> > > Also the understanding that a LIR leases
IP addresses
> is quiet
> > wrong. If
> > > they are build Internet infrastructure,
provide
> connectivity
> > and charge
> > > administrative fees for the addresses
they allocate to
> that
> > customer there
> > > is nothing wrong with it.
> > > I personally can understand the
permanent Transfer of
> > resources and that has
> > > been a more natural and fair movement
and why
> community agreed
> > on that on
> > > most RIRs, but despite some beautiful
picture painted
> IP
> > leasing brings no
> > > good to lessee and to the Internet if
things can be
> done in
> > the proper way.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Fernando
> > >
> > > On 02/09/2021 17:39, Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> > >
> > > In message
> <058401d7a013$7797d160$66c77420$@iptrading.com>,
> > > "Mike Burns" <m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > We tried the method you've espoused
below for thirty
> years and
> > > the result were a huge amount of wasted
address space.
> Once
> > the market
> > > was adopted, many of those addresses
found a useful
> place in
> > the routing
> > > table.
> > >
> > > Well, it's sort of a Catch-22. Mike,
you're
> absolutely right
> > that once
> > > there was a free market, a lot of stuff
came off the
> shelves
> > and started
> > > to be used productively. But can any of
us say with
> > confidence that once
> > > there was a free market, a lot of this
commodity
> (IPv4) that
> > was sitting
> > > on shelves didn't just stay there
-because- of the
> open and
> > free market...
> > > because the "owners" of those blocks
effectively
> became
> > speculators, just
> > > waiting arond for the scarcity to become
more acute,
> and for
> > the price to
> > > go up?
> > >
> > > (I confess that I never in my life took
an economics
> class,
> > but it seems
> > > to me that the entire field is chock
full of
> head-scratching
> > conundrums
> > > like this... situation where you are
damned if you do
> and
> > damned if you
> > > don't.)
> > >
> > > The free pool era is dying, let's put a
fork in it as
> quickly
> > as
> > > possible We've seen the corruption
engendered by the
> bait of
> > the
> > > free pool in multiple registries now,
including our
> own.
> > >
> > > Just curious Mike... Does this opinion
on your part
> extend
> > also to IPv6?
> > >
> > > Your old-fashioned method of address
distribution
> would get
> > some
> > > addresses to those in need, I will
concede that.
> However, so
> > will
> > > leasing addresses, with that
demonstration of need
> being the
> > lease
> > > payment. Will you concede that those
who pay to lease
> > addresses need
> > > them?
> > >
> > > Even if nobody else does, I certainly
will. But of
> course
> > that's not the
> > > only issue.
> > >
> > > The current Cloud Innovation v. AFRINIC
thing is in
> some ways
> > confusing as
> > > hell because it has brought to a head
-multiple-
> long-standing
> > issues that
> > > have then gotten all tangled up with one
another,
> making it
> > difficult for
> > > anybody to tease apart the various
separate issues.
> > >
> > > One of these is what might be called
"equity", i.e.
> the social
> > desire to
> > > help Africa, a continent and a people
who have been on
> the
> > receiving end
> > > of so much exploitation and malevolent
evil, over the
> > centuries, at the
> > > hands of others.
> > >
> > > Another issue is the right and proper
role of RIRs.
> > >
> > > Last but not leas (and perhaps the most
troubling and
> most
> > difficult to
> > > crack open in a way that does not merely
reveal our
> individual
> > biases) is
> > > the question of the proper role of what
I will just
> call
> > "speculators"
> > > within any free market.
> > >
> > > Contrary to what some might say, I think
that when it
> comes to
> > IPv4 addresse
> > > s
> > > at least, it most certainly -is-
possible to
> distinguish
> > "speculators" from
> > > actual and legitimate end users and/or
legitimate
> brokers &
> > middlemen such
> > > as yourself. As I understand it, the
current system
> requires
> > people to
> > > document their equipment purchases. No
equipment
> purchases?
> > You're almost
> > > certainly just a speculator.
> > >
> > > So then the question becomes two-fold:
(1) Do we want
> > speculators in this
> > > marketplace? and (2) Is there any
actually feasible
> way to
> > keep them out
> > > of the "free" market even if the
collective "we"
> firmly
> > decided that we
> > > wanted to do so?
> > >
> > > I personally don't have answers to any
of these
> questions. I
> > would only
> > > offer up the observation that I am aware
of at least a
> few
> > speculators at
> > > this moment in time, and it would be an
understatement
> for me
> > to say that
> > > their actions seem to me to be both
glaringly untoward
> and
> > also unhelpful.
> > > But if you ask me IN GENERAL whether
"speculators" are
> a
> > necessary and even
> > > useful component of a free market, I
cannot say they
> are not.
> > And it seems
> > > I may not be alone in leaving open this
possibility:
> > >
> >
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/09/the-theranos-implosi
o
> n-
> > a
> > >
>
nd-robert-shiller-on-short-selling-and-complete-markets/
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > rfg
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > ARIN-PPML
> > > You are receiving this message because
you are
> subscribed to
> > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list
subscription
> at:
> > >
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you
experience any
> issues.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you
are
> subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list
subscription at:
> >
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact i...@arin.net if you
experience any
> issues.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Kind regards.
> > Lu
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
>
--
--
Kind regards.
Lu
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
