[arin-ppml] Your views on ARIN Transfer Policy Proposal 2008-2

[Bill Darte]

> > 
> 
> I really question that the AC wants consensus on this proposal.
> 
> > I personally feel perplexed by this today and I am polling those 
> > engaged in ppml to help me and my colleagues move this proposal 
> > forward.
> > 
> 
> There has been a large amount of feedback on the discussion 
> list already on this proposal.
> 
> Bill, I don't know if you are a supporter of this proposal or 
> not but I will assume for the rest of this e-mail that you 
> are, and when I say "you" I mean "everyone who dreamed this 
> up and is pushing it"  So don't take "you" personally.

Actually and personally, I am looking for consensus for or against.
My role is to help make sure that the policy proposal is as acceptable
as it can be made to be....
Whether that ever reaches a level of acceptability that warrants the AC
forwarding it to the Board is beside the point.
Personally, my particular interests and 'vote' don't matter in my role
as AC member.


> 
> You need to keep in mind that this is a very polarizing proposal.
> And of course it is, because of how your doing it.  Your 
> basically trying a revolutionary approach to the proposal and 
> everyone on the list is already somewhat conservative, or 
> they wouldn't even be subscribed.  That's the first strike against it.
> 
> Even if I was for the concept of allowing 3rd parties to buy and sell
> IPv4 addresses - which I am not - I would vote against this 
> because it is too much, too fast.

Personally, I'm not for sales either....empathically.
I'm much of an 80/20 person and think that a policy can often do good in
a simplified state and become better with experience and future
tweaking.

> 
> There currently is no consensus in the community for an 
> answer to the question of whether it is even a good idea to 
> even begin taking steps to try prolonging the life of IPv4 in 
> the first place.

Certainly prolonging IPv4 was never an objective or intent of 2008-2 at
least for the majority of AC members, I'm sure.

> 
> This proposal is attempting to do an end-run around that 
> discussion by ASSUMING that we should be prolonging IPv4 and 
> asking the community to say the best way to do it.  In short, 
> you have already made up our minds for us on that score.
> 
> So, the people like myself who are opposed to the idea 
> realize that there is no point in even discussing anything 
> with the supporters of this proposal.  They don't want to 
> examine or even admit that it might be a bad thing to attempt 
> to interfere with the natural course of events that would 
> result in the death of IPv4 in a few years.
> 
> And you figure that once you have a 51% majority that is all 
> you need to force your paradigm.

51% majority (or anything close to it) on any policy proposal discussion
in my 10 years of experience, has never constituted consensus.


> 
> I am not interested in helping you to modify this proposal.  
> I do not consider that you are reaching out to the 
> opposition.  I think that all your trying to do is scrape a 
> few undecided people into your camp to obtain that 51% majority.
> 
> If you really wanted to reach out to the opposition then 
> scrap this and replace it with a proposal that modifies the 
> NRPM to insert a single, simple paragraph that states that it 
> is ARIN's position that steps must be taken to prolong the 
> use of IPv4 past the runout date.

You are and have always been welcome to introduce such a policy
proposal.
I'd be in your camp on that one...fyi.

> 
> That would allow the community to debate the wisdom of 
> attempting to extend IPv4.  If the majority ended up deciding 
> that this was a good thing, then the minority of people 
> opposed to allowing IPv4 to just die naturally would at least 
> have the feeling that they would be able to have some input 
> in the next phase of the discussion - which is how to best extend it.
> 
> IF the community DID decide it was a good thing to extend 
> IPv4, THEN you can resurrect this proposal at that time.
> 
> At this point all I want is for the vote to take place 
> because I think this proposal will lose, and losing is the 
> ONLY THING that I think that will bring you to your senses to 
> realize that you aren't going to be able to sidestep the 
> discussion, and your going to have to have the discussion of 
> whether extending IPv4 is a good idea or not, whether you 
> want to or not.  Because, it's obvious your not willing to 
> discuss that topic now.
> Probably because your afraid of losing, because deep down you 
> know it is a bad idea to extend IPv4.

I do.  But, again.  You may perceive that that was the intention of
2008-2, but it was not.
Many/most (all?) of the AC were worried about that reception....but we
felt that the community should debate it if they took it that way.
It seems to have worked out that way indeed.


> 
> 
> 
> Ted
> 
>