[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio

Hannigan, Martin hannigan at verisign.com
Wed May 11 14:15:36 EDT 2005

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:38 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio
> > You often make enlightened and insightful statements.  This 
> email was 
> not
> > 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.

I think youre referring to 'status quo'. Status quo is intimidating
to new and old people alike and is generally a bad thing, as you 

[ SNIP ]
> 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.

Mm. That seems additionally divisive and elitist to me
and contrary to the air of open-ness that the Internet
tends to operate in for at least as long as I've been 
around - which results in lack of participation because
a "lesser" class is created. Member only meeting/voting
is good enough seperation for me.

> 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.

I'm quite familiar with NANPA. I think it's more productive
for the majority to focus. A few of us familiarized with NANPA,
et. al. should suffice as a good reference point, IMO. That 
certainly doesn't stop anyone from doing it, but consider this
a touch of dissuasion.

> > 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.

A little Occams Razor here. More participation
and open-ness should address this. The question then comes
back around to simply 'how to get more people participating'.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list