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, bmann...@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
rir practice.
> > 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 right to _use_ space should be rescinded.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
relevence.
And that would be a great loss.
--bill
