"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
jcurran at istaff.org
Sat Feb 5 12:38:29 CST 2011
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:27 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
>> Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint.
> there is no complaint here bill. there is simply the observation that
> if I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
> that it is, at best, presumptious to presume the power of expropriation
> without taking into account the doctrine of eminent domain. If the
> RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away -
> I expect to be compensated at fair market value. ...
That seems like a particularly strong reason on your part to participate
in the policy development process. I happen to believe that the community
needs to be particularly respectful of the ability of all address holders
to use their space undisturbed, but at the end of the day we have to run
according to whatever policies the community develops.
More information about the NANOG