[ppml] Re: With additional comments on global policy RE: Encouraging return of legacy space

[Mury]

Okay, 

I have a question for you, which follows some background...  Personally, I
really shouldn't be spending this much time being "involved" on this list,
but I'm doing it because I do think more people should voice their
opinions and if I don't then how can I expect other people too.  

I, like most people, can probably only comment based on my experiences,
which are some what limited in the grand scope of things.  So I'm sure
some of my comments can sound naive and perhaps just plain stupid
sometimes.

But, having contributed, if you can call it that, I wonder if I've done
any good.  Many times it feels like a few of us are just bantering back
and forth.  Do any of the comments here ever get summarized and taken to
meetings?

How could someone in my shoes actually get some sort of policy proposed,
whether it's a good idea or just plain sucks?

It would also be helpful for some of the more knowledgable people chime in
with background and concrete numbers on certain issues.  Yes, there are
3-5 of them that do, but I think there should be more.  As far as I know,
staff memebers from ARIN do not do much participation.  Maybe they are
posting as themselves and I just don't know they are involved.  But it
seems to me they should be able to provide data and background to
discussions.  If it's really discussions that ARIN is looking for.

If this list is just to give the appearance that the members can be
involved then I suppose it's doing it's job.  I'm not saying that it isn't
playing a bigger role, but from my perspective as a member I don't see it.

I think people tend to get involved more when they actually see their time
is not being wasted.

I'm also a little concerned about the message that just went out about
keeping the conversations on topic.  This has the feeling of being
corraled.  "We want your input, but only on things we have already decided
on, and only if you agree with us."  Now of course I stated that as an
extreme, but take a step back and think about how it might feel to us.

Case in point:  The whole discussion about the legacy IP space.  Are we
just trying to brush that one under the rug?

When talking about certain policies it is helpful to view them in light of
the whole picture, that is why these other topics come up.  I'm a big
picture person and to be told that something is off-topic makes no sense
to me.  Is the topic only /24 allocations?  Or is it also how do we best
utilize IP space to meet the needs of the Internet community at large?

It's like as a child when I went to the doctor for help with migrane
headaches.  He just wanted to talk about other things.  He didn't want to
deal with the migrane so he kept changing the subject.  He didn't know how
to deal with the migrane.  Well he should have pointed me to a specialist
or told me he didn't know what he was doing.

I'm trying to be involved.  I've made my suggestions.  I've watched *many*
other people make similiar suggestions.  I haven't heard much back.

You made a closing comment about how ARIN is a bottom up based membership.  
This butt (me) would like some real feedback when things are suggested by
myself or other people.  Or, I need some real tools to take my suggestion
to another level.  Or, you can just tell me to get lost now and I'll save
us all some time.  I have plenty of other things to do and people to
annoy.

Thank you.

Mury

PS.  Don't take this as a whole criticism against ARIN or an individual.  
I think ARIN does a good job overall.  My criticism is specific to the
topic.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, John M. Brown wrote:

> 
> ICANN / IANA is basically the GIR (Global IP Registry)
> They have responsibility to make sure the RIR's (Regional
> IP Registry's) follow RFC 2050, just like those that are
> allocated space from the RIR's.
> 
> IANA could request an audit of any of the RIR's allocations
> to make sure they are following RFC 2050, and that the 
> (to use a RIPE term) LIR's are also following RFC-2050.
> 
> The RIR's do not like the fact that they have to get space
> from IANA.  In fact there is movement within the RIR's
> to attempt to separate themselves from the ICANN / IANA
> process and move towards a "self regulated" model and 
> admin the entire space within this "self regulated" model.
> 
> This would allow them the freedom and the autonomy to make 
> and set policy that is independent of the IANA or ICANN 
> processes. It would remove any "third party" appeal process 
> for requesters of numeric address space.
> 
> Prior to the death of Jon Postel, he handle appeals from 
> requesters when InterNIC or the RIR's declined an IP 
> allocation request.
> 
> Today, that appeal process is thin at best.  It needs to be
> put back in place and strengthened.  
> 
> The IANA needs to step up to the plate and take a solid 
> leadership role in this and other technical processes.  
> 
> The IANA *MUST* reclaim and re-earn the technical respect 
> of the community if these processes are to succeed, for 
> if they do not, then "self regulation" will fail and 
> government or treaty (read ITU, FCC, FTC, Homeland Security)
> organizations will step in and tell us how it should be done.
> 
> In short the IANA needs a CTO, a Chief Technical Officer. 
> This person is someone with solid technical clue and 
> credibility in the community, and a person that has the 
> modesty yet strength and diplomatic ability to worth with 
> diverse people and organizations during debates.
> 
> Originally this was a role that Dr. Postel was to take.  His 
> untimely death created a void that was not filled.  
> 
> It *MUST* be a person that has had significant technical 
> operational experience and has dealt with real world internet 
> technology development and deployment.
> 
> Today many people are attempting to fill these shoes with the
> added baggage of their own agendas.  Each is earnest in their 
> beliefs that they are doing the right thing, for their scope 
> of concern.
> 
> All the petty bickering, finger pointing, claims of not 
> listening to each other, etc need to be squashed.  
> 
> "We The Community" must ensure that the "Net is for EVERYONE", 
> and to do that we must be active and participate.  We must act 
> as grown ups and not be distracted.
> 
> We must be relentless in assuring that the Net is in fact for
> Everyone.  The net is not for just America or Europe or Asia, its
> for all races on this planet.  Each region has its own customs
> and laws, all must be respectful of those and not try to enforce
> a single view on others.  The net is transforming and empowering
> the people of this planet like nothing in history has done before.
> This is causing some governments concern.
> 
> 
> 
> As we move to dealing with policy issues, here in the PPML, or
> in other forums it is important to understand that good policies
> are those that balance many different and sometimes competing
> needs. 
> 
> I am actively encouraging members and lurkers of this and other
> lists to get involved.  
> 
> Technology people (read geeks) normally shy away from politics, 
> policy talks and the like.  That's left for the "suits".   The 
> issue here is if we leave it to the "suits" they will tell us 
> that PI is 3, not 3.1415.....   The technical community *MUST* 
> become more involved, must learn how to work with the "suits" 
> and help each other.
> 
> The ARIN community *MUST* become more involved with policy 
> formation and with the actions that ARIN, a bottom up membership 
> based organization, takes.
> 
> Get involved, Stay involved.  It takes time, but if YOU don't
> who will ???  
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> John M. Brown
> Speaking for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> > Behalf Of Mury
> > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 6:24 AM
> > To: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: 
> > [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of 
> > > legacy
> > > IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if 
> > they will 
> > > voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not 
> > > concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity 
> > that should be 
> > > coordinated globally and it should be done with the 
> > blessing of IANA and 
> > > ICANN if it is done at all.
> > 
> > Hasn't IANA and ICANN basically given ARIN the task of 
> > managing IP space?  
> > Perhaps I have missed something.  Of course it should have 
> > IANA's and ICANN's blessing.  Why should ARIN have to be 
> > dictated first by ICANN?  I have no clue what goes on at 
> > ICANN, but I have a suspicion that the people in and around 
> > ARIN are more in touch with these issues.
> > 
> > Let me put it to you this way... A father asks that his 
> > teenage boy to help with more of the yardwork.  "Where do I 
> > start dad?"  The father instucts the boy how to mow the yard. 
> >  Upon mowing the yard the boy sees that by trimming some of 
> > the weeds around the fence the condition of the yard would 
> > look much better.  The boy decides to ask his dad if he can 
> > trim some of the weeds that the mower couldn't reach.  Dad is 
> > pleased.  
> > The boy is pleased.  The neighbors are pleased.
> > 
> > Obviously the weeds are those unused legacy IP blocks.  ARIN 
> > should draw up a simple game plan, get all the appropriate 
> > parties blessings, and at least make another attempt to get 
> > that IP space back.
> > 
> > If a company needs a smaller block, I say give it to them for 
> > free.  If in the next 5 years they find out they need more IP 
> > space, give that to them for free too, but have some sort of 
> > time limit on the free IP space.
> > 
> > As far as your global comment, I doubt that many African, 
> > Asian, Australian, South American, etc. entities are sitting 
> > on lots of large unused blocks, but I certainly could be 
> > wrong.  And what if I am?  Why can't ARIN still do it?  Why 
> > can't they become a model for the process if it works?
> > 
> > > ARIN members would be better off deploying testbed IPv6 networks and
> > > connecting these with other company's testbed IPv6 networks 
> > in order to 
> > > gain experience with IPv6. When the address shortage does become 
> > > significant enough to push customers towards IPv6, it is 
> > likely to quickly 
> > > become a tidal wave migration. Historically, IPv4 was 
> > deployed for many 
> > > years before there was a sudden exponential demand for it 
> > in 1994 and 
> > > 1995. The main reason that ISPs were able to meet the 
> > demand is that there 
> > > were a lot of people around who had years of hands-on 
> > experience running 
> > > IPv4 networks. At the time they were gaining that 
> > experience, they didn't 
> > > know how IPv4 would be used in the future. They didn't 
> > foresee the web and 
> > > e-commerce and then decide to run an IPv4 network. 
> > Similarily, with IPv6 
> > > we don't need to predict grand future horizons in order to 
> > find a reason 
> > > to deploy it today. One small reason is enough and it 
> > doesn't have to be 
> > > the same reason for everybody.
> > 
> > Are you saying that ARIN's resources are so strapped they 
> > can't blink and breath at the same time?  I find this 
> > extremely hard to believe.  If testing IPv6 in the manner you 
> > suggest is agreed to be useful, why can't ARIN do both?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Mury
> > 
> 
>