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.
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.
<[email protected]>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? > > <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>, > > "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> 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-implosio 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 ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
