[arin-ppml] Can a personal propertyapproachevertransitionintomulti-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-uppolicydevelopment model?

[John Curran]

Mike - 
 
  You got it; you should advocate for whatever policy
  you feel important, but realize if you only work in 
  a regional context then other regions policies may 
  not be complementary.  When we are able to get common
  agreement on goals across regions, the benefit is 
  larger (but it can be very hard to achieve)

/John

fyi - You are still mixing private and public replies; I don't 
      mind it under the circumstances, but unchecked it may 
      give folks pause before replying to your private msgs...

On Apr 28, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

>> You should advocate policy that you feel important.  I'm just
>> pointing out that our policies are more effective if complemented
>> by other regions.
> 
> Fair enough, and I am advocating for us to complement the APNIC region's brave and forward-thinking policy to make it more effective, as you say.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
> To: "Mike Burns" <mike at sum.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Can a personal propertyapproachevertransitionintomulti-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-uppolicydevelopment model?
> 
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> I'm still at sea on this.
>> 
>> Why should we at ARIN care whether RIPE, for example, decides to work towards the demise of IPv4?
> 
> For example, if RIPE works to the demise of IPv4 by disallowing
> all transfers, and we're working to allow all transfers to make
> IPv4 last as long as possible, then our policies interfere with
> each other and are less effective than if we support one another.
> 
> For example, the Internet works so well because we all agreed on
> global standards for routing protocols, not just regional ones.
> 
> You should advocate policy that you feel important.  I'm just
> pointing out that our policies are more effective if complemented
> by other regions.
> 
> Another example:  aggregation helps the routing table stay low.
> Us making policy that supports better aggregation is meaningless
> if another region doesn't consider routing aggregation at all
> and results in lots of small prefixes.
> 
> /John
>