[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other contacts to act through a "blacklist")

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Fri Apr 29 23:43:41 EDT 2011


In a message written on Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 08:15:48PM -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> As announced on April 18th, the AC voted to abandon draft policy
> ARIN-2011-2 at our April meeting in San Juan.

That is unfortunate.

I went and found the transcript,

I can't say how disappointed I am to see a statement like this from John
Curran:

  "Legacy resources that have been abandoned because a company, for
   example, has dissolved don't really pose a problem."

Having personally tracked spam and botnets back to such blocks in
the past I know first hand John is incorrect in this statement.  As
these lists show, there are folks hijacking them and using them to
do bad things on the Internet.  The fact that the company has dissolved
makes it much easier for this to happen, since there is no one to
complain.

I also have trouble squaring statements like:

  "We currently do pursue misuse of resources for reclamation. But a
   directive from the community saying expend a significant focused effort
   in this area probably would have financial implications, and we need a
   guide as to how large people would like those financial implications to
   be."

..and..

  "Resource impact:  Moderate. Significant staff training, additional
   staff, software tools, all could be required."

The first is a question, we need to know how many resources to put into
this, but the second suggests there is a known level of impact, and it's
Moderate.  It could in fact be low, if that's what the community wants,
but it appears the level under consideration was decided before the
community discussed the proposal.

> I, for one, felt that the community generally was not in support of
> policy requiring ARIN to take specific action on this, particularly in
> light of the fact that ARIN indicated in San Juan that they were
> indeed taking such action even in the absence of policy dictating it.

Staff is already moving on this you say?  Well, the resource
evaluation said it required "Significant staff training, additional
staff, software tools," so I am now confused.  If they are already
doing it, why would adopting the proposal require more training?  If
they are already doing it, why do they need new software.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe your assertion.  If they are already
doing it, the resource impact should have been "none" or "low".  But if
the resource impact is moderate and they need all these things to
implement 2011-2 then they are not in fact, already doing it.

> If you (or any member of the community) feel that this is
> insufficient, you are welcome to initiate a Last Call Petition any
> time up until five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes
> from the April meeting are published (which should occur some time on
> or after May 2nd).

I'll note in the written comments, 5 speak positively, 3 negatively.
All of the positive ones make some comments that they have issues
with the language that may prevent them from voting for this specific
proposal, but they like the idea.

[For the record, the show of hands was 7 in favor, 45 against.]

I would have hoped with folks speaking in support but with language
changes that the AC might have tried to adjust the language and run
it through another meeting.

I also remember a day when the AC shepherds would have gotten back
to the original proposal author with what had happened shortly after
the meeting.  No one let me know what had become of this until you
posted on PPML.

No, I won't petition.  The ARIN I found so vibrant and seemed so
community oriented in 2002 has degenerated into some sort of weird
caricature I don't even understand anymore.  The various PDP changes
seem to have slowly morphed to kill policy as quickly as possible,
rather than try and find the good parts and foster them.  The
leadership is so worried about ARIN's image due to the IPv6 transition
and transfer market that even the midlest of criticism merits a 21
gun defense salvo to deny any issue and quiet the accuser as quickly
as possible.

I've thought about leaving PPML several times since I left the AC,
and I think this is the final straw.  There's no reason for me to
expend my time and effort in this forum any longer, I'm not getting
anything out of it except dismay and frustration.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110429/d3df5da1/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list