[ppml] New ARIN Sub-region Policy Proposal (Rural-America)

[Bill Van Emburg]

Owen DeLong wrote:

> 3.    John's proposal and 2003-15 are similar.  The difference for you
>     is that John's proposal doesn't help you and 2003-15 does.  This
>     is the same difference for John.
> 4.    Both are a bad idea unless we first obtain a clear vote showing
>     that there is no willingness to grant 2002-3 with allocations
>     added to all of ARIN.
> 
Actually, neither proposal does anything for me.  I am not in Africa,
and I'm not in rural America.  I also happen to support both 2003-15 and
2002-3.  If it's carefully done in small steps, I even support a gradual
movement of the allocation boundary towards /24, which is where I'd like
it to be if the Internet can handle it.  Be careful what you presume.

I don't know if you're aware of the full history behind 2002-3.  Whether
you are or not, it's important to note that 2002-3 is a compromise
proposal that has resulted from years of work by many individuals.  This
debate has raged for a long time, and 2002-3 is intended to be an
initial step towards what you want that will allow more data to be
gathered towards supporting or refuting technical reasons given to not
move the allocation boundary towards longer prefixes.  Rather than
trying, yet again, to change 2002-3, support it, and let the gathered
technical data make your argument (for longer allocation prefixes) for you.

What I *am* arguing against is this preoccupation with the idea that
policies can't be applied to a subset of ARIN's population.  There is
nothing in ARIN's charter, policies or history to support that theory.
It is simply something that some seem to find useful in their argument.
  Your statement in another e-mail, "ARIN does not currently have any
policies which subdivide it's actions based on any geographical,
economic, or other arbitrary and non-technical boundaries," is simply
not true.  You must look no further than the fee structure to see this.
  Charging large ISPs more money to be ARIN members is a policy with no
technical basis.

I also have a problem with trying to win an argument through extensive
repetition of the same points.  Fortunately, I've been with ARIN long
enough to know that the AC and the BoT can see through this technique.

May I suggest that if we don't have something new to add to the
discussion of 2003-15 and/or 2002-3, that we end this back-and-forth?  I
don't think it's possible that anyone has failed to pick up on the
positions that have been presented.

In addition, feel free to present this "rural America" policy, if you
truly feel it is a good way to go.  While it will not see discussion at
this coming meeting, it will be handled as all other policy proposals
are in due time.
-- 
				     -- Bill Van Emburg
					Quadrix Solutions, Inc.

> --On Tuesday, October 7, 2003 22:22 -0400 Bill Van Emburg 
> <arin-member at quadrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> J Bacher wrote:
>>
>>> At 05:00 PM 10/7/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> > The ARIN sub-region known as "Rural America", those
>>>> > localities with a population of less than 1 million
>>>> > persons here by proposes the following Policy Proposal.
>>>>
>>>> This is an example of a poorly thought out
>>>> policy proposal. It doesn't conform to the
>>>
>>>
>>> This is an example of determining how many people will accept a
>>> double-standard when there ought not be.
>>>
>>> John's analogy is excellent.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely not!  As someone else on this list mentioned, we're talking
>> about a different policy for a different CONTINENT, and one which is made
>> up of mostly "3rd-world" countries.  Rural America is much more similar
>> to the rest of the U.S., and does not, in any case, represent a easily
>> separable geography.
>>
>> ...and don't try to say that 2003-15 doesn't represent a continent.  It
>> represents the portion of that different continent that ARIN currently
>> has control over.  (...and only has that control for historical reasons,
>> a problem that AfriNIC is trying to fix!)
>>
>> 2003-15 and this "Rural America" proposal are very different things, and
>> there is no reason to consider them the same. --
>>                      -- Bill Van Emburg
>>                     Quadrix Solutions, Inc.