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

antonio at nambu.uem.mz antonio at nambu.uem.mz
Fri Oct 10 07:39:22 EDT 2003

Nicely put.

On 9 Oct 2003 at 12:27, Bill Van Emburg wrote:

> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list