[136826] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Sat Feb 5 14:01:25 2011
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110205182734.GB22325@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:01:00 -0800
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmanning@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.
And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the =
public policy process, is what decides=20
> 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.
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right to _use_ space should be rescinded.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.
> 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.
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).
-Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAk1NnmwACgkQGvQy4xTRsBHqBACdG/EB0mn2C/kd7tANzBVpBUbG
EO8AoJu0gXNrNy3OMy88dsz10B9cWUUf
=3Djhkb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
