> Who decides this? All those asset purchase agreement wasn’t
signed out of
> blue.
Agreements made among men and women based on erroneous premises
are no
more relevant that two people agreeing that the sky contains no
stars;
either they are both blind, they are both fooling only
themselves, or one
is dishonest, fooling the other, who is blind.
And why make you the authority to decide what is asset what is not?
I never claimed to make these decisions. The pioneers who invented and grew
the network wisely embedded that authority in organizations composed of peers
who came by their votes meritocratically, and choose by consensus.
Last time I check those power is with court.
In some places, perhaps. The difference here is the global nature of the
resources under discussion means that a ruling in one jurisdiction may have
little to no effect on others. Rest assured that any such court case would
attract amicus briefs, among other mechanisms, from other relevant parties
and stakeholders to make sure said court has full understanding of issues at
play.
>
> Number itself might not constitute asset. However registration
in an unique
> database surely is.
>
Said registration comes with responsibilites as well as rights.
Consider
it more a position of trust to manage the assets ethically.
Such a
position can be revoked, if that trust is broken.
That is up for the court to decide, it is uncharted territory if RIR have
such power, I think one day, a court case somewhere in the world will
decide
as such and things will be more clear.
No, it is reasonably clearly in the hands of the IANA and by extension, RIRs.
I suggest that you should contemplate the film "The Pirates of
Silicon
Valley" for a bit of historical perspective on these two
figures. You may
find that you just proved my point.
No, I will not, I have my view on those two persons and you title yours—I
don’t need some film to firm such view.
That is your loss. Pity too, I had hoped you would be open minded enough to
consider perspectives that exist somewhere other than between your own ears,
particularly reasonably accurate historical accounts relevant to a point of
discussion.
What makes you assume I am advocating for anything? I was
simply refuting
your point that capitalism rewards pioneers. Nikola Tesla, and a
great
many other true pioneers might disagree with you, were they
alive and here
to do so.
Capitalism rewards pioneers, does not means it rewards all pioneers.
It occasionaly rewards some pioneers, and sometimes strips those pioneers of
everything, instead handing their rewards to the unscrupulous who are willing
to exploit those pioneers.
> Capitalism can be flawed except it is the best mankind
> have discover so far.
Perhaps, perhaps not. You are, however, entitled to your
opinion. Be
aware that stating your opinion does not constitute fact.
I never claim it is fact. But what is your opinion of best form of society?
Communism?
You term an economic system as a form of society, but a society has a great
many more components than just how commerce is transacted.
I am not sure we have defined it yet, but we can. There is a society
possible, by means of advanced technology applied selflessly, where there is
abundance for all, crafted not only from mutual respect and cooperation, but
also with that same respect for nature and her resources. If you need to put
a name on it, call it Roddenberryism.
Notwithstanding all this conjecture, I will remind you that there is only one
stream from which to drink, yet all need to drink to live. As such, no one
will be allowed to dam the stream, and claim the water as their own.
There is a simple solution, however, to the issue of number resource
exhaustion and scarcity, which has robust and proven technology already
developed to effect it: sunset IPv4, and migrate to IPv6, where this
scarcity does not exist. Nobody wishes to speak of this, however, because
capitalism has functioned, in this case, to retard progress.
This is analogous to the situation we find ourselves in as a society: We
consume the finite resources of this planet at an ever increasing rate in an
unquenchable thirst for more growth and profit, while destroying
biodiversity, and making our planet unlivable for the generations who will
come after us. Solutions for sustainability exist, but like IPv6, they
eradicate existing profit streams of the entrenched incumbants, and are
therefore frowned upon from on high, while those on the bottom pay the
highest price for that hubris.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > <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-implos
i
> 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
>
>
>
--
--
Kind regards.
Lu
