[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM, John Sweeting <john.sweeting at gmail.com> wrote:
>> when evaluating proposal 131, ARIN staff
>> >offered a radically different interpretation of 2009-3. Their
>> >interpretation is that an ARIN policy which prevents the return of
>> >legacy addresses to IANA (prop 131 version 3) conflicts with the
>> >mandatory returns to IANA in draft policy 2009-3.
>
>  I do not remember ever seeing that stated, would you please reference the
> email you read this in? It is the timing of PP131 that is wrong, not the
> intent. In fact in all my conversations with any of ARIN staff I have not
> heard that stated. I believe your use of the word "mandatory" is not
> correct.

Hi John,

As someone who grew up in and around Washington DC, let me tell you
something about the anatomy of political dirty tricks. The essence of
a dirty trick is that you pick words and phrases which imply something
blatantly false. In fact, any reasonable person without competing
knowledge would understand you to be stating the falsehood plainly.
Yet if pressed, you can deny ever meaning such a thing. After all,
your words -could- have meant the truthful version too. Thus you
escape being called a bald faced liar while widely planting the
falsehood in voter's minds.

What I saw happen to prop 131 yesterday stinks! The proposal's author
was led to believe that ARIN had approved a global policy proposal
which his proposal would violate.

That couldn't be further from the truth!

The global proposal in question, 2009-3, was worded the way it was
worded because as a community we anticipated doing exactly what prop
131v3 calls for: giving IANA bupkis. Indeed, our purpose in advancing
2009-3 was little more than extending an olive branch towards the
other regions: if we changed our minds about "no inter-region
redistribution," no one would have to wait for a global policy before
we could disgorge our generosity. And we wouldn't block the other
regions from redistributing amongst themselves if they wanted to.

I don't like the smell of the process that tricked the proposal's
author. If 131 is opposed, let it be opposed in open debate. Don't try
to kill it by implying the existence of competing obligations where
there are none.

And if I'm just jaded and I've misinterpreted honest confusion and
poorly chosen words, let's bring that out into the light of day and
then proceed with 131v3 without the "misunderstanding" about its
relationship with 2009-3.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004