[arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies

[Bill Darte]

Joe,

Speaking for myself, not the entire AC,....

The AC is not, through its announcement, trying to discourage you or anyone from making proposals.
The ACs statement simply says that the proposals need to represent a very good idea as measured by community support and the traditional test of clear, needed and technically feasible.

The only thing that has changed, is that the AC has stated that a new balance needs to be struck between the level of community consensus and the communities need for a stable and predictable policy environment.

The AC stands ready to forward any proposal that has broad community consensus, makes a needed and positive impact on the status quo, is clear and technically feasible.

Bill Darte


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Joe Maimon
Sent: Fri 5/14/2010 5:00 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies
 
Hey Ted,

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>

>
> The AC's position of damn the torpedos, full speed ahead has NO LESS
> validity than your position of let's do what we can to eke out a few
> more years of IPv4.


That is not my position. My position is that we should try and do what 
we reasonably can to prepare for the possibility that we may need IPv4 
more or longer than we either expected or wanted and to explore what if 
any possibilities exist to try and arrive at the lesser of undesirable 
outcomes should that be the case.

Normally that is considered the conventional approach.

Even the titanic had a women and children first policy. Where are our 
lifeboats? Are there enough of them?

Unfriendly reclamation has never been my position. I am against that. I 
want ARIN to be making friends, not losing them.

I am in favor of incentives for return or mild disincentives for non 
return, incentives for maximizing efficiency if or while it still 
matters. Incentives require relevancy.

The transfer policy, which serves as the legitimization of a potential 
trading market for addresses should provide a good part of that.

Some may feel that is enough. Some may feel that it is more than enough. 
Some may feel that there is more that can and should be done.

I would prefer the latter not be publicly discouraged by informing them 
that the field is already tilted in their disfavor.

Speaking for myself, I would probably have still submitted the two 
proposals I did, even after this announcement. But that could just be 
due to my thick skin (or thick head).

>
> If you REALLY BELIEVE in your proposition that we need to spend a lot
> more time on IPv4 policy tweaks then HAVE FAITH IN YOUR POSITION. As
> I already stated, the AC position merely "informalizes" what is already
> part of the process, so if YOU ARE right, then the community will surely
> see this sometime in the future and there then will indeed be, as the
> AC put it, IPv4 proposals that "have a compelling benefit for and
> receive strong initial support from the community"
>
> Ted

What, is it not possible to be correct and still not gain community 
support, at least not within enough time to actually make a difference?

Either way I expect to have lots of fun and excitement.

Joe
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100514/e8efb52f/attachment.htm>