[arin-discuss] voting

[Paul Vixie]

> 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.

there were, and there are.  i had breakfast with a guy today who works for a
big router vendor and has been around the internet since early days who still
thinks NAT (which he and i both despise) has won and that IPv6 is doomed since
it has no backwards compatibility to IPv4.  (for the record, we disagreed.)

> ... 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.

if that does happen it won't be by ARIN board decree, but rather, through the
normal ARIN policy process.

> 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?

i don't think any of us knows the endgame.  but ARIN's fees aren't meant to be
punitive -- every attempt to institute a "sin tax" here has gotten shot down.

> ... would it not be of interest for board candidates to state their support
> or not for [IPv6 advancement] in advance of the election?  I would think if
> it's controversal for some people that doing so would increase voting
> participation.

i guess, when you put it that way, it sounds like a fine idea.  john curran
has said repeatedly here in recent days that ARIN Denver is where he hopes
this community will discuss ways to improve the election process.  since our
elections are governed by bylaws rather than by the NRPM, the policy process
is not really the right way to change our election process.  i think that a
well reasoned proposal here (arin-discuss@) ideally to be followed up by an
in-person proposal during the friday membership meeting, is the way to share
your wisdom about getting candidates to answer some hot-button questions in
advance of an election.

> ...  It will be interesting to see if the ARIN board ever is faced with one
> of these issues, what they will choose to do.

i'm the new guy-- this is only my fourth year on the board.  others with
longer tenure might know of more divisive (for the board) issues than the ones
i've typically faced in my time here.  there's a balance to be struck, between
principled opposition and principled flexibility, when consensus isn't easy,
or else a decision-making body becomes disfunctional and useless.  i think the
board of trustees has hit that balance very well during my tenure thus far.

> ...
> 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.

your example is a perfect demonstration of why the board had to issue that
IPv6 declaration.  there was no way to, no reason to, and no time to get the
membership to reach consensus on the matter.  i reason that the membership
elected the board so that we could reach representative consensus as a small
group of focused, educated, and motivated parties with fiduciary duties.  but
even though the board is smaller than the membership, consensus is still the
goal.

> ... 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.

sounds good so far.  will need more flesh.  could the moderator be drawn from
the membership or staff, or should it be an outside consultant?

> >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.

i suspect that the character of the president of the united states mattered
more than any litmus test, during the cuban missile crisis.  that's what i
meant by the one mattering more than the other.