[ppml] FYI: LACNIC micro-allocation policy approved and imple mented

[william at elan.net]

> take an economics course or 2 so you can understand the differences in the
> economies of the world and why there are different rules and laws in
> different countries. 
I took economics in college, I do not remember any serious attention being 
paid to differences in economies of different countries, I think there
would be in a specific course on that and something that is offered for 
business school majors and not in intro courses offered for other schools. 

But I'm not sure deep understanding of economics is really that important 
when deciding on ip policies, after all ARIN is supposed to be impartial
non-profit organization and not a tool for any particular economic model
(and definetly ARIN should not be viewed as being an emobodiment of 
heavily corporate US economy; I'd rather think of it as having roots
in IETF and what John Postel was doing)

> I will once again challenge you to run for the AC in the upcoming
> election....with all the support you say you have you can definitely make a
> difference. Good luck.
That is exactly the problem. I do not believe I'd be able to do anything 
from within the AC as there are too many others there that do not agree 
and are just plain opposed to me; and I do not want to promise to do 
something (i.e. "make a difference") that I do not (or can not) deliver. 
I might reconsider about working within AC in a year depending on who it 
is composed of then and what it does to that time.

And I also work best (including presenting my ideas and working on 
them) when particapting on mailing list and worst on face-face meetings 
and on teleconferences.

Add to that, that I also do not agree on what AC is supposed to be 
doing, I think it is supposed to be more of advisory role on ARIN 
opeational issues, rather then a parliment-like body creating policies.
I think, policy proposals are better off being developed in open forum 
like this instead of close group like AC.

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:03 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] FYI: LACNIC micro-allocation policy approved and
> implemented
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Well, that is the risk you take. Like William said, ARIN VOTED for it
> > > and THE AC went thier own way...
> > That is a major distortion of the truth.
> I was being heavely ironic in my original email and you're probably taking
> it as hard hit, but nevertheless my email did not have any "major 
> distortions", see below
> 
> > The only straw poll taken with respect to policy proposal 2002-3 at the
> > Memphis ARIN meeting was 15-4 in favor of the ARIN AC looking into
> reducing
> > ARIN's minimum allocation size (you can verify this for yourself in the
> > meeting minutes,
> This was the only question asked after the presentation of proposal and as 
> such people are automaticly assuming this is regarding current proposal 
> and in fact I've asked several people present at the meeting as to when 
> they were voting for whois aup proposal and for 2002-3 if they considered 
> that they were voting for original proposal (with modifications as
> necessary)
> or for something else and everybody said they did in fact undertood it as 
> continuation or finish up of work of original proposal and not something
> new. 
> 
> I did perhaps exadurate on concensus slightly but I clearly remembered 
> that overwhelming majority of those who voted were for and per standard 
> system if somebody does not vote, his voice is not really counted as being
> for or against and concensus is estimated from those who do participate, so
> if figures number of votes you showed is correct, we can say that 80% were 
> for the proposal. Not sure what iis requirement for rough consensus but I 
> believe 80-90% is somewhere close and 80% is overwhelming majority if 
> somebody wants to put it this way.
> 
> > Furthermore, the ARIN AC has specifically NOT abandoned the issue of 
> > reducing ARIN's minimum allocation size.  In fact, the AC has established
> a 
> > discussion group that is actively looking into this issue, and has been 
> > tasked with forming a proposal that addresses the concerns and wishes 
> > raised by those on all sides of the issue (you may find evidence of the 
> > formation of this group in the April 8 AC meeting minutes, and a report on
> 
> > the progress will be in the minutes of our last meeting (5/8/2003), once 
> > they are approved).
> 
> This is not how it was presented at the end of Memphis meeting, you actually
> 
> said you're abandoning proposal and will instead work on proposal that will 
> reduce minimum allocation size for multihomed organizations to /21
> (currently 
> /20) and afterwards I had private discussion with person from AC and he said
> you were going to reduce to /21 keeping /22 as being minimum justification.
> So my email was right on these issues and on what AC has proposed.
> 
> As for discussion group, we do have system of "open discsussion" and
> this is not how AC operates so AC discussion group would not in my opinion 
> be a good substitute for working group as a way to get final version of the 
> proposal, instead if you want separate discussion of this proposal from 
> everything else, you should establish it as open mailing list and invite 
> people there but keeping it within AC and calling it a "discussion group" 
> is not appropriate, you might as well just say AC wants to do it on  your 
> own not taking into the account standard procedures for establishment of 
> working group and proposals that are done on this mailing list. 
> 
> And no I will not consider AC doing on its own to be a substitute for what 
> people have assumed would be a continuation of work on original proposal.
> 
> > Once again, I must emphasize that the AC is a group of elected volunteers 
> > who are trying to meet the needs of ALL entities in the ARIN public policy
> 
> > community. 
> You can not meet needs of everybody on this particular issue, we'v had
> discussion on this topic before - there will always be some against it no 
> matter what, especially from large ISPs. If you try to meet needs of 
> everybody on every issue you will undoubtfully end up having each issue
> been under consideration forever as this one have been already. At some 
> point you just have to make a choice if there is majority support on the 
> issue or at least not a majority opposition (and no majority opposition 
> is what ARIN usually uses as far as I can see for other policies being 
> approved).
> 
> Again going into the issues, the reduction of mimimum assignments by one 
> bit as had been proposedby AC is not a substitute for micro-assignments, 
> this is completely different. Micro-assignments are really blocks of /24 - 
> /21 as had been defined by all other RIRs in their micro-assignment
> policies.
> The reason I supported /22 is that I thought if we make it too easy for 
> very new company with no internet experience to get /24 it would backfire 
> as there would be many who do not have good idea on how to use the space,
> many who get the space and then abandon it and higher potential for abuse,
> so I though that either we have to have some kind of a check system (like 
> sponsorship I'v proposed - though I've to admit it probably looked way too 
> complicated and may not be practical in its original form) or without that,
> we'd have to go for higher block size and I was the one who originally 
> proposed /22 as compromise for such micro-assignment policy.
> 
> But /21 is nowhere close for micro-assignments, at least for /22 with /23 
> minimum we do actually have companies that need space and have already shown
> 
> some knowledge of using bgp and ip allocations (by utilizing 512 ips which 
> would be checked by ARIN) that can get their own block, but /21 is not 
> like that and this would not be supported by majority who want 
> micro-assignments (most of these already consider /22 to be too much of a 
> compromise). 
> 
> Now I was privately asked if reducing both requirement (currently /22) and 
> qualified minimum allocation size (currently /20) by one bit would be 
> acceptable - it would be as as it would result in /23 requirement to get 
> /21 block. But I see no reason to assign somebody /21 block immediatly, 
> instead it would just be better to go with original proposal 2002-3 and
> have /22 being assigned when /23 had been utilized. But if AC wants to 
> propose just one-bit reduction everywhere (becoming /23 requirement when 
> multihomed to quialify for your own block) then I would support that
> provided
> that ARIN also looks into new schedule of fees for small assignments.
> 
> William