[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul

[Owen DeLong]

Apologies to all if this seems like mostly rehash.  I will try not to
respond again publicly unless there is significant new information.
However, since Jeff still seems to be misunderstanding some of what I
intended to say, I felt posting this last clarification was worth
the effort.

Owen

[snip]
>   Yes and harm has already been inflicted on too many occasions for me
> to have kept count...
>
I don't see how:
	1.	Harm can have been inflicted under a policy which does not
		yet exist.

	2.	This policy grants any discretion which would allow staff
		to cause harm.  The discretion granted in this policy is
		strictly limited to the ability to prevent harm where it
		would otherwise be allowed under the policy.  In such a new
		type of policy with such potential to do harm, this seems
		a reasonable safety valve, IMO.

If you are talking about harm done under other policies, then, that is not
particularly germane to this discussion unless you can point to some place
in this policy that I have missed where the discretion exists for ARIN staff
to do additional harm rather than merely prevent it.

>   Agreed, except if harm has already occurred on multiple occasions, than
> the discretion exercised is either not good enough, improperly determined
> far to often, or has other motivations for such discretion to be
> exercised...
>
Again, I don't see how this makes sense in the context of discussing this
policy.  Harm has not already occurred under this policy because this policy
does not yet exist.

>>  The only reason this is a bad idea in law enforcement is that
>> it encourages corruption.  While, in the long run, it might be possible
>> that people would "bribe corrupt ARIN officials to allow them to keep
>> their inaccurate data in spite of refusal to correct it.", I don't think
>> that is an issue in the immediate future.  As such, by the time such
>> an issue came up, I think we would have sufficient operational experience
>> to deal with that and modify the policy accordingly.  I also think that
>> the oversight by the BOT and their emergency authority could be used to
>> address any such situation that was detected or brought to their
>> attention. As such, I think this is reasonably safe discretion to give
>> to the staff under the current circumstances.  They have much wider
>> discretion WRT the issuance of ASNs and IP addresses than this policy
>> would give them in preventing the revocation.  The point here is that
>> since this policy, as written, gives staff only the ability to prevent
>> revocation and not the ability to cause revocation through their
>> discretion, I believe this is very safe.
>
>   I disagree, the carrot without the stick is only a prelude to more
> carrots, and future transgressions..  Yet the stick when not used
> spoils the child, hence leaving latitude for further abuses to
> occur or existing abusers to continue unchecked..  However,
> if the stick has not policy that is strictly and exactly defined,
> than as you indicate, the stick becomes to often used.  Hence
> my original suggestion that hard and fast rules in the form of
> a detailed policy is unfortunately necessary...
>
1.	I don't really understand your meaning here.  Generally, I try
	to avoid viewing the government has having anything close to a
	parental role in my life.  Not that they don't try to usurp such
	a role on a regular basis, but, it's just not a good place to go.

2.	This policy has no carrot and a very limited "stick".  If the POC
	for a resource is completely non-responsive, then, it is quite likely
	that the resource itself does not remain in legitimate use and should
	be reclaimed.  The discretion granted in this policy is the ability
	for staff to recognize and prevent an unwarranted revocation that
	would otherwise occur in this policy.  That is, IMO, a prudent safety
	valve for such an experiment.  I could not support such a policy
	at this time without it.

3.	This is about public policy, not disciplining children.  If you do
	not believe that there is a difference, then, we are much further
	apart in our views than I had hoped, and, I believe we should simply
	agree to disagree on this matter.


Owen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050418/72522d7b/attachment.sig>