[address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01

Chris wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 10:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>>The IP address space is not and never has been a commons.

Well, I am not convinced that the discussion at that level is appropriate
or even helpful.

But - (caveat: I am not a native (american) english speaker nor an economist!)
the description of "The Commons" in the Wikipedia (to me) seems to support
Chris' point:

"
There are a number of important aspects that can be used to describe true commons.

The first is that the commons cannot be commodified – if they are, they cease to be
commons.

The second aspect is that unlike private property, the commons is inclusive rather
than exclusive — its nature is to share ownership as widely, rather than as narrowly,
as possible.
"

The 3rd one offered seems to be irrelevant here, as IP numbers don't decay or
vanish, due to being used (or not) on the Internet.


Btw, what *is* suggested to be a Commons is the Internet as an encompassing space
or entity.


My contribution here is not meant to be a statement in favour or against the
proposed policy.


FWIW,
Wilfried

> Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means.
>>For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story.
> 
> 
> this is simply wrong. you do not know what you are talking about.
> i don't think there's more to say about it. maybe so much: i live in a place where commons have been a central and vital concept for society for hundreds of years, and following your frivolous statement it never could have existed.
> 
> as an auxilliary measure i'd claim ownership of your ips. ah what the heck, 0/0 is mine.
> 
> that's all so ridiculous - forgive me if i don't regard further discussion following this thread as sensible or worthwile.
> 
> 
>>Thus, I support proposed policy 2012-01,
> 
> 
> well then - bring it on to arin... ;)
> 
> regards,
> 
> 	Chris