[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio

Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Wed May 11 09:38:23 EDT 2005

> You often make enlightened and insightful statements.  This email was 
> such an example.  The Advisory Council makes NO policy.

But the AC is part of the process. In any case, I am
not attacking the AC. I am attacking the small group of
insiders who currently form policy. I happen to be part
of that group so I'm attacking me as well, but not the
AC per se. If I had wanted to attack the AC itself then
I would have focused on their omnibus rewrite of the
entire ARIN policy set.

> Fat
> chance that I should be 'accused' of being an industry elite...though 
> willing to own up to it if you'll write my boss to tell her that, as 
such, I
> should be elevated in rank or salary.

Maybe I should say "industry insider" then. 

> You could neither activate participation nor
> support for the proposal.  Who's fault is that?

That is the fault of ARIN in toto for preventing the ARIN
membership from easily communicating with each other, and
by not trying to broaden participation in the ARIN policy
making process. Whether the HD ratio idea for IPv4 is good
or bad, it just didn't get much discussion at all. There just
aren't very many people out there looking at policy proposals
and commenting on them.

> As for participation.  Explain to me how a 'members list' would entice 
> more participation than the 'ppml list' and access to email addresses of 
> AC and BoT members?

Well, it would allow a member to communicate directly with 
the agreggate membership rather than to the public, 
the AC or the BoT.

> Would your HD Ratio proposal have garnered more support
> on yet another list?

First of all, it is not *MY* proposal. The HD ratio for
IPv4 is something that originated in the APNIC region
and I believe it was Paul Wilson who started it all.
Policies do not belong to individuals. And secondly, I
am not writing about the HD ratio policy in particular.
It is just one of many policies that did not get a very
good airing in terms of diverse viewpoints. This lack of
diversity impacts successful proposals as much as 
unsuccessful ones.

> How would YOU suggest that ARIN generate greater
> participation? 

1. Make a member-only list and add at least one
contact person for each member. Offer every member
the possibility to have other people from their 
organization added to the list. In the interests
of transparency, archive it in a publicly accessible
form so that all can read but only members can post.
No doubt, if the public wishes to comment, they will
take the discussion to the PPML.

2. Assign a staff member to actively solicit participation
on the PPML from non-member organizations who could or
should have an interest in IP addressing. Actively embrace
organizations like the NANPA council and the ITU who,
have different perspectives and experience. I wonder how
many of you have read the NANPA address allocation policies
and examined their reporting spreadsheets. I know that
IP addresses are not phone numbers, but understanding how
other groups do their work provides perspective.

> My feeling is that ARIN gets less participation than you or I or all of 
> would like, because people do not perceive themselves to be negatively
> affected.

I agree. But it is a bad trend for ARIN as an organization
especially now that the authority of ARIN and all RIRs is
being openly questioned in the ITU and the United Nations.
It is not wise to wait for angry people who are negatively
affected to demand ARIN action. We need to be more proactive
so that ARIN is seen to be *MANAGING* IP addressing rather
than merely reacting.

> I do believe that ARIN itself
> could outreach to more entities if you and others think that that is an
> appropriate expenditure of your $$$. 

As I understand it, that is a decision for the BoT.
I am hoping that by raising the issue here we can have
some public discussion and convince the BoT that it is
worth examining the issue and possibly, expending some
resources in this direction.

> turnout for the election was still poor.
> Who's fault is that?

The fault of all the people who make elections into
an emotional argument devoid of facts and a popularity
contest for a Stalinesque father figure. So far, ARIN
has been rather more sober and ARIN policymaking has
been rather more focused on facts and public examination
of alternative courses of action. Not perfect by any means,
but better than the TV driven drama of last autumn.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list