[arin-discuss] voting

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
>Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 5:36 PM
>To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting
>
>
>> ><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.
>

I had thought it was proven pretty conclusively by the surveys of
the existing IP namespace - that is, how much of it is still tied
up in legacy use, etc. - and by the rate of IPv4 uptake, that this
is an impossible scenario.

I guess maybe it was proven to me - although perhaps the information
is too scattered for the general public?  I honestly didn't know
that there were still people out there who were seriously entertaining
an IPv6-less scenario on the Internet.

Nevertheless, this kind of controversy is easily solved by posting a
FAQ on IPv6 on the ARIN website that answers some of the more obvious
questions such as "why do we have to move to IPv6" etc.

Still though, there's controversy on how long IPv4 will hang around.
Of course, ARIN cannot prevent people from using assigned IPv4 numbering
as long as ARIN is still charging a fee for the assignments - but this
begs the question that what is going to be the litmus test for declaring
IPv4 "obsolete" and cease charging fees for it and remove all the IPv4
entries from the ARIN whois.  When "everyone" is running IPv6 and "most"
people have stopped advertising IPv4?  Or is ARIN going to just charge
fees for IPv4 forever?  Or raise fees to the impossible level?

> 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.
>

OK, well then perhaps I was a bit too harsh there - and that statement is
even today still controversial - in that case, would it not be of interest
for board candidates to state their support or not for it in advance of
the election?  I would think if it's controversal for some people that
doing so would increase voting participation.

>> 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.
>

That's fine - that's the way ARIN's board wants to play it, although
I have found that in life there's some things that cannot ever be
resolved by consensus.  Such as the abortion debate I mentioned a
few postings ago, it's going to be fought over for the -next- 1000
years, just as the Islam vs Christianity has been fought over for
the -last- 1000 years.  It will be interesting to see if the ARIN
board ever is faced with one of these issues, what they will choose to
do.

>> 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 had asked how to increase voting - I don't see that there is any
way to do so other than to make dissent public.  Nobody is interested
if the organization insists on consensus for everything, and in fact
insisting on consensus can at times create more trouble.

For example the US governments approach to global warming is to demand
consensus from the US population that there's a problem before they
start spending money limiting industry and auto emissions - well we
aren't going to get that until NYC floods - and even then, undoubtedly
there will still be a few people in the US who claim global warming
doesen't exist.

consensus is great if the issues aren't time-sensitive.

>> 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,

This was more of an example than anything else, Paul.

>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 would ask then - were you on the ARIN board 5 years
ago?  If you were, then yes, you were wishy-washy about it.

That is the kind of thing that is needed.  During your candidacy for the
ARIN board if you had posted (in a forum that so far is non-existent)
that you felt the ARIN board was moving too slow on IPv6 followed by
the IPv6 resume you listed here, this is exactly the sort of thing that
I think would help to increase voter participation.  Yes, perhaps it
might be a "litmus test" of sorts - but it is also needed and required.

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

As long as they were publically archived, and summarized.

>> 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?  :-)
>

I think the chances of getting real time participation like this are
low, we are all busy folks.  I would rather favor the style of a
moderated debate where there would be a question submittal period
where folks (including the candidates) could submit questions to a
moderator in advance,
then the moderator would combine like questions and add a synthesis
of issues off the mailing list, plus issues that the prior Boards
had deferred, and create a master list of open ended questions.  Each
candidate would respond to the moderator how they saw fit, the
questions and responses would then be posted.

>election.  (note, this is also true of meatspace politics, and it's why
>everybody always says that what matters is character, not litmus tests.)

It's only true of meatspace politics to a point.  Character matters if
the candidate is a real snake - a habitual liar, or criminal, etc.
but beyond that it's an issues thing - everyone gives lip service
to character but they only really care about the issues.

Ted