[arin-discuss] voting

[Paul Vixie]

> ><http://www.arin.net/v6/v6-resolution.html>.
> 
> Paul, that statement is one of the most bland watered down meaningless
> statements that could be made.  How could you possibly be against it?  Or
> for it?  It requires and mandates NOTHING specific or concrete.

i don't agree.  perhaps it wasn't news to you, but it was the first official
statement by ARIN that IPv4 won't last forever, and that at some point in the
future, any network that wants to keep growing, will have to adopt IPv6.  you
might think that's noncontroversial but a lot of folks seem to think that with
some kind of trading market, and a lot of NAT, and a lot of other tricks, the
internet can keep growing the number of connected+reachable devices without
end.

> Boiled down it says in effect IPv6 is a good thing and you all ought to move
> to it.
> 
> In any case, it ignores the various "IPv4 buying and selling on a free
> market" proposals, and many other controversal aspects of IPv6 migration, it
> says nothing about whether RETURNED IPv4 will be re-allocated back out, and
> so on and so on.  In short, it is a perfect example of what I'm talking
> about, it simply restates what we all already know.

you're underrating yourself.  a lot of people told me in response to that
announcement that they thought ARIN's board had overstated the case for IPv6,
and/or that IPv6 was only one possible way forward, or that IPv6 was doomed,
or similar.  just because you already knew what that announcement said, don't
assume that ARIN's wider community of interest knew it at the time.

> And if you actually have a problem with the statement personally, then I
> wouldn't want to elect you if you were not willing to speak your mind.
> 
> An honorable board member who had concerns about an issue and disagreed with
> the majorities decision would not hesitate for a second to speak it
> publically.  It is very possible to be opposed to something but still
> implement it.  ...

i think that if there had been serious, strong, principled dissent, that would
have been reflected in the absence of a board statement on the topic, rather
than a board statement followed by public dissent by individual trustees.

> If your not comfortable in the role of disagreeing with something yet still
> being a part of implementing it, then you frankly do not have the right
> stuff to be on the board.

i implement stuff all the time that i don't agree with.  at home, at ISC, in
the IETF, in my kids' PTA meetings, and on various boards.  my only insistence
is that all views be heard and that democracy is obtained.  but this goes far
afield of the question, is public dissent a duty if consensus wasn't smooth.

> You need to put your positions out there on the controversal issues and
> assume that everyone voting will consider your entire list of positions.
> For example, I may deplore your wishy-washy position on IPv6 and prefer
> someone more agressive about implementing it -

yow.  so you didn't know i implemented IPv6 features in BIND8 back in 1996,
years before there was a network to run it on?  or that i've pushed for IPv6
connectivity for root name servers for at least the last five years, and
that f-root has been answering on IPv6 for years even though it took until
yesterday for ICANN to add AAAA RRs to the root-servers.net zone and root
glue?  perhaps i have simply been too quiet, if you call it wishy-washy.  i
thought <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-September/008958.html>
was merely laconic or acerbic, but perhaps i merely came across as a hater?
i was also the creator of the inet_ntop() and inet_pton() API, which i then
offered to the IETF during the preparation of RFC 2133.  do i really seem
like i'm personally uncommitted to the success of IPv6?  or merely that i
see ARIN's role in the success of IPv6 as being separate from my own role?

> So, I have at least 2 litmus tests here, you might say, and I think a lot of
> people are like this - they have a lot of things they want to see get done,
> and they will go for the person that is as close to their list as they can
> get - but they realize they can't have everything.

sounds like you'd be in favour of webinar-style debates, with audience
questions in real time, for future ARIN elections?

> It will only increase participation if something controversial is in the
> mix.  Controversy attracts people.  If every candidate comes off all
> agreeing with each other, then nobody will be interested.

so, the debates should be in the style of a geraldo rivera show?  :-)

> It boils down to what each candidate's views are.  ARIN has a future, what
> is that future going to be?  There are many paths that can be taken.
> Whoever is elected will be guiding ARIN down one of those paths.  If every
> single candidate and every single ARIN member all agrees what path there is
> to be taken, then is there really any point to having an election?

well, yes, there is.  a couple such points, including the need to elect folks
who can properly (in the eyes of the membership) handle issues that come up
that are too new and unpredictable to have been litmus tests in the previous
election.  (note, this is also true of meatspace politics, and it's why
everybody always says that what matters is character, not litmus tests.)