On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 8:35 PM David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > maybe you could go back to my original question and comment on the examples > I provided.
Hi David, I can try, but bear in mind my viewpoint doesn't necessarily follow your dividing lines. Indeed, I'm reasonably confident it does not. > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 17:53 William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 2:41 PM David Farmer via ARIN-PPML >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I have a question for those that oppose the leasing or loaning of IPv4 >> > addresses to other entities absent connectivity; Is it the rent-paying or >> > that lack of connectivity provided with the addresses that offend you? Or, >> > both? >> >> The defined Economics term is "rent seeking." Just renting something >> to someone is not "rent seeking." The term has a specific meaning. >> Briefly, it means exploiting a rule-making process (such as law, >> regulation or other public policy) often by changing it to let you >> make money without adding value. > > So, I intentionally didn’t, use that term, but I figured someone would. I > didn’t want to limit my question to that precise meaning, but I didn’t want > to exclude it either. > > I have heard it said by some that charging for addresses is wrong, they > should be included with the connectivity for no additional charge. Along time > ago, I felt much the same, but things have changed and that is no longer > realistic. Things have evolved, maybe not for the better, but nevertheless > they have evolved. Part of why I used the term "rent seeking," is that it makes this difference clearer. When I sell connectivity which includes addresses and I'm not just faking the connectivity, there is a meaningful value added. When there's substantive value added it's definitionally not rent seeking. Could be other problem things but it's not the Big Problem. I'm not comfortable with LIRs assigning ARIN-size quantities of addresses downstream either, but that isn't inherently rent seeking. It's a separate issue. We can usefully talk about it separately or even kick the can down the road. >> Address leasing, on the other hand, is unapologetically rent seeking. >> I have them only because the regulatory agency allowed it. I add no >> value by letting you pay me to use them but you have no choice because >> the regulatory agency has no more to offer. I and my contemporaries >> took them all. > > > Requiring Technical Need doesn’t automatically prevent Rent Seeking Agree. > So, Technical Need is no protection from Rent Seeking. Disagree, as stated above. One of the core elements of rent seeking is that the product-out has little or no additional value compared to the product-in. It only has additional cost. When technical need is understood to mean companion network resources which have added substantive value to the addresses, it can't be simple rent seeking. > I have no problem with a healthy skepticism of > address brokers, they are out to make money, > but there is nothing wrong with that. I have no problem with address brokers facilitating address -transfers- and being well paid for it. The U.S. is an ownership society and transfer is a critical part of ownership. I'm for it. I'm also mindful of U.S. history. The early colonists weren't just religious fanatics, they fled the trailing vestiges of European Feudalism. In particular, they fled _rent_. When we think of royalty we think of Kings and Queens but the rank and file were the Lords and Ladies. More precisely, they were the Lords of the Land or _Landlords_. With the exception of a few Freeholders, you were either royalty or you were a peasant and paid rent on your generational farm to the local Lord of the Land. Who was at liberty to evict you at his pleasure and in fact did so. In the U.S. you could own your land. The farm was yours. You were the landlord. It was a big deal. This is why hundreds of years later things like interest on the mortgage for your primary home is tax free and the politicians get bent out of shape when banks make mortgages hard to get. It is the public policy of the United States to strongly encourage ownership over rental. As someone steeped in U.S. history, the notion of IP peasantry and IP Landlords makes me deeply deeply uncomfortable. I'd like to see policy in IP addressing that is thematically similar to the overall U.S. public policy prioritizing personal ownership. So, for me it isn't particularly about technical need, it's about whatever facsimile of ownership applies to IP addresses dividing the haves and have nots with rent-seeking behavior being the most extreme version of that particular evil. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ 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.
