[arin-ppml] Proposal insanity --- an open letter
In isolation individual tiny incremental tweaks may seem harmless, but when
viewed as a set the changes result in a drastic departure from the past. 133
in particular looks like it just sends those who have not signed the lrsa
packing, but given the many times that John has specifically noted on this
list that he views and promotes the ARIN whois database as a routing
registry, removing those entries is effectively stating "we don't consider
your use of the address blocks as legitimate, so we are removing them from
the 'legitimate' route list".
Call it consent of the self governed if you want, but the overall tone of
this list has turned very isolationist and elitist, simultaneously refusing
to recognize non-lrsa legacy while insisting that because those entities
happened to have existed in the ARIN region that ARIN has exclusive rights
to their resources. Removing them from the legitimate route list is the
first step to declaring them fraudulent and available for reclamation and
reassignment within 30 days. Is there a process within 131 for appeals? Of
course not because that would preclude the mob from taking what it demands.
I almost left 134 out because it seems to simply codify existing practice,
but included it on principle that an unnecessary flurry of policy changes at
the last minute is doing nothing to further the stewardship of the resource.
My overall point was that redefining 'legitimate' to suite the whims of
those who happen to be at the table at the moment is not stewardship, it is
greed and hoarding. True stewardship requires a long term perspective, and
the flurry of last minute policy modification proposals shows the
perspective is anything but long term.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:bensons at queuefull.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:45 AM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: Tony Hain; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal insanity --- an open letter
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:23 PM, John Curran wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:52 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
> >> 30,000 ft. summary of prop's 126, 129-131, 133-135
> >> ...
> >> FWIW: opposed to all listed proposals
> > Tony -
> > Thanks for the thought-provoking input, as well as the
> > succinct summary of opposition to all the listed proposals...
> > The one surprising element is that several of the policy
> > proposals you list express similar concerns to those that
> > were alluded to in your soliloquy; are you certain that
> > none of the policy proposals would improve the situation
> > from your perspective? (I ask only because it is
> > predominantly via the policy development process that
> > changes in ARIN's address management practices occurs)
> Indeed, prop 133 (along with 134) is intended to address exactly the
> notions Tony espoused. Specifically, it leads to a system of overt
> consent by the governed - leaving non-consenters to find alternatives
> of their own to ARIN's registry services. It's not clear to me how the
> content of Tony's message leads to opposition to prop 133.