[arin-ppml] History Lesson (was: DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2011-1: GLOBALLY COORDINATEDTRANSFER POLICY (Legecy space))

[Milton L Mueller]

Fascinating history. Thanks for making us aware of that. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey I. Schiller [mailto:jis at mit.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:43 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: History Lesson (was: DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2011-1: GLOBALLY
> COORDINATEDTRANSFER POLICY (Legecy space))
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 05:35:23PM -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Reiterating 1996-era best practices as if they were religious
> > principles doesn't help.
> 
> Ah, RFC2050... Let me quote the IESG Note, right at the top of the
> document, before the abstract:
> 
>   "By approving this document as a Best Current Practice,the IESG
>    asserts its belief that this policy described herein is an accurate
>    representation of the current practice of the IP address registries
>    with respect to address assignment.  This does not constitute
>    endorsement or recommendation of this policy by the IESG. The IESG
>    will reevaluate its approval of this document in December 1997
>    taking into consideration the results of the discussions that will
>    be take place in the IRE Working Group between now and then."
> 
> I am pretty much responsible for that note. In our deliberations within
> the IESG (John, I believe you were there as well) I objected to the
> proposed document (which would become RFC2050). One objection (called a
> DISCUSS vote) was sufficient to stall a document. And DISCUSS we did...
> 
> The basis of my objection was that the document covered what I believed
> to be business practices and was not really about technology. I didn't
> believe then (and don't believe now) that business practices should be
> purview of the IETF.* If the registries at the time wanted to promulgate
> a policy, they were welcome to do so. However I didn't believe that the
> IETF should endorse the policy. A BCP at the time implied endorsement. I
> don't believe I would have objected to a informational document.
> 
> Eventually we reached a compromise and I removed my DISCUSS vote,
> permitting the RFC to be published. The compromise was the IESG note
> above. I don't believe the IETF/IESG ever did revisit the document. I
> have no recollection of the IESG doing so, and I served on the IESG
> until 2003 (though my memory is not perfect by any means). I believe the
> phrase "Overtaken by Events" best describes what happened. ARIN was
> formed and the rest, as they say, is history.
> 
> I bring this up now just to make clear that RFC2050 was not handed down
> from Mount Sinai. It was simply a Best Current Practice based on the
> practices in place in 1996.
> 
>                         -Jeff
> 
> 
> [*] Actually I have waffled over time on this point. I guess I believe
>     that the IETF should either deal with business issues, or not. But
>     not sort of do it half way with technologist pretending they are
>     business people or lawyers or whatever :-)
> 
> - --
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Jeffrey I. Schiller
> Information Services and Technology
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> 77 Massachusetts Avenue  Room N42-283
> Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
> 617.253.0161 - Voice
> jis at mit.edu
> http://jis.qyv.name
> _______________________________________________________________________
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFNpRvZ8CBzV/QUlSsRApnrAJsHs2RxzQNPtmaPoFhzFzvTNani8gCg0kgZ
> YMCMgUHLaXj4qyxOxu3ElIE=
> =z0x/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----