[arin-ppml] Do we have a fundamental conflict in the regional goals for number resource management?

[John Curran]

On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:48 PM, Michel Py wrote:

>> That is likely to vary significantly by legacy holders,
>> so we need to hear from them on this matter.
> 
> I think you are missing the point here. I know a few legacy holders, and
> just the fact of acknowledging ARIN's existence is a problem for them.
> I'm writing this with one of your other postings in mind, so read below.
> 
>> Can we actually have *any* multi-stakeholder, private sector led,
>> bottom-up policy development system for technical coordination of
>> identifiers at the same time as we have parties presently that:
>> 1) have no existing contractual requirements to participate in the
>> system, but 2) presently hold number resources in their belief as
>> personal property?
> 
> This is the challenge at hand, indeed. However, I wish you have not
> presented this on the form of a question. If you doubt it can be done,
> you set yourself up for failure. In your mouth, I accept nothing short
> of cheering the troops before the battle, for total victory. Please come
> to your senses; nothing has killed more soldiers than the general
> publicly doubting that victory can be achieved.
> 
> Please give my last paragraph some thought.

Michel - 
 
  I have given your email quite some thought, and after careful
  consideration, I do believe the concern that I expressed was 
  most appropriate to pose as a question...

  This is not a battle; our mission isn't to march over one segment of 
  the community for the sake of another.  The purpose of the discussion 
  is for parties to gain better understanding of mutual goals, and find
  areas where everyone can work together towards the goal of successful
  administration of the number resources to the benefit of all.

  For decades, the Internet community has expressed overall sentiment
  towards self-governance in the form of open, multi-stakeholder
  bottom-up policy development (i.e. a stark contrast to having 
  a top-down, government-led regulatory regime for the Internet.) 
  To maintain this self-governed approach, it is necessary to have 
  inclusive policy development and welcome everyone with number 
  resources to also participate in the actual policy development 
  for these resources.  It's also a goal that the administration of 
  such policies be based on a set of voluntarily entered agreements, 
  therefore allowing normal contractual mechanisms and protections 
  for interactions between the parties.

  If a segment of those with number resources find acknowledging the
  very existence of any policies constraining their use of resources 
  to be an anathema, then we literally cannot have a system which both 
  provides consistent management of number resources while also 
  depending on the voluntary entry into contracts for administration.
  Requiring governmental imposition of such administration might solve
  the conflict, but would be contrary to our goals if it results in 
  loss of the self-governance approach itself.

  So, the Venn diagram of goals appears to have no common intersection, 
  and hence my question to the community regarding which goal to set 
  aside:  consistent administration of policy, the anathema of some
  to having any policy constraints over the use of "their" resources, 
  or avoidance of governmental intervention?

  This is not an hypothetical question: one could easily argue that 
  the consistent administration of policy for IPv4 isn't a major 
  issue because it's a transitory problem with the move to IPv6. 
  Such a view would allow us to accept operating absent any policy
  regime for those who don't voluntarily want to participate.  On the 
  other hand, if you hold that consistent administration of policy is 
  important for protection of traditional number resource management
  goals (i.e. registration, conservation and aggregation), then the
  problem becomes how to achieve such in the presence of those 
  determined to remain outside the system and without turning to 
  a governmental regulatory solution.

  My purpose of asking the question was to raise this potential of a
  fundamental conflict between the goals, and to get some discussion 
  started in the community about how this should best be resolved.  

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President & CEO
ARIN