[arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.

Thu May 5 15:04:12 EDT 2011

Precisely.  In US politics the term is "single issue politics" and the 
slang is "gunners, baggers, or dittoheads"  I don't
want their kind in here and I expect neither does anyone else.

Ted

On 5/5/2011 11:51 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> Okay, I understand what you mean, and where the line should be drawn in
> terms of solicitation for participation.
> I shouldn't go out and make mass mailings or robotic postings or go to
> specific forums and try to stir up the population to jump on and vote
> for my proposal.
> But if I had a blog or something, I could write about the issue and ask
> the readers to participate in the list generally, but not just to jump
> on one proposal that might suit them ideologically or emotionally.
>
> I would say that is pretty close to my own opinion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
> To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.
>
>
>> On 5/5/2011 11:30 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>> Hi Ted,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the input.
>>> I understand what you are saying about the dangers of the unwashed.
>>> What about a blog?
>>> Do you think it would be okay to advocate a position in blog and solicit
>>> participation on the list?
>>>
>>
>> It's always OK to solicit participation in the list. But the key word
>> here is "participation"
>>
>> Writing an article to tell people to subscribe just over some point
>> issue and flood the mailing list isn't participation. If they are going
>> to participate, then they better be here for the long run. There's a
>> lot of other stuff that we deal with.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
>>> To: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:23 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2011 11:02 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>>>> It seems to me that the decision about needs analysis for transfers
>>>>> may
>>>>> have some large non-technical components, like one's view of the
>>>>> role of
>>>>> markets in allocating scarce resources.
>>>>> Yes, there are issues of deaggregation, which are too technical for
>>>>> the
>>>>> layman.
>>>>> Yes, there is a danger of overburdening the policy development system,
>>>>> not something anyone would want.
>>>>> But do we want a technical elite making decisions that are not really
>>>>> technical, like the value of unrestricted versus restricted markets?
>>>>
>>>> No, we do not.
>>>>
>>>>> Are we inside an ivory tower?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, but there is a proper way to bring the general public into the
>>>> decision making in a large volume.
>>>>
>>>> There isn't (in my opinion) a problem with posting in a rag like
>>>> the Libertarian Times or some such, that a mailing list like ppml
>>>> EXISTS. The very few members of the general public who waste their
>>>> time with that stuff and who are at all competent and really care
>>>> about the issue will investigate, make themselves fully aware of
>>>> all of the arguments on all sides of the issue, as well as look
>>>> up the rules for the ppml list (which I will remind everyone,
>>>> ARIN owns and makes the rules on) then join and contribute in
>>>> a positive way.
>>>>
>>>> But the majority of the members of the general public who waste
>>>> their time with that stuff and who are NOT competent will find the
>>>> bar of actually having to look up the instructions for posting
>>>> and rules for joining too difficult to master, and will stay away.
>>>>
>>>> Unless, that is, the poster of the article in the Libertarian Times
>>>> gives an explicit step-by-step set of instructions for how to
>>>> go about subscribing, that a blind monkey could follow.
>>>>
>>>> If you really and truly want to bring people into the decision
>>>> making process who are too ignorant to google up "ppml mailing list"
>>>> then the proper way is via publishing a survey in the ragazine.
>>>>
>>>> The author of the article in the Libertarian Times can create a
>>>> dumbed-down survey on someplace like survey.com or whatever, that
>>>> the ignoramuses can comprehend.
>>>>
>>>> Then we can get the feedback from the unwashed masses without
>>>> being drowned in an onslaught of 5000 fools wanting to know what
>>>> an IP address is and why we can't make more of them.
>>>>
>>>> But, to save you the time I can predict what the general public
>>>> will say in advance - boiled down:
>>>>
>>>> "I want what I have to stay the same and I don't give a damn
>>>> if it staying the same prevents 3/4 of the people in the world
>>>> who aren't on the Internet now, from ever getting on it. I
>>>> got mine, Jack, and screw the rest of them."
>>>>
>>>> Ted
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu>
>>>>> To: "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>;
>>>>> "David
>>>>> Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:45 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/5/11 12:25 CDT, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/11 11:49 CDT, Mike Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>> I have had an idea.
>>>>>>>>> Since it has been determined that everybody in the ARIN community
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> an email address may participate in policy development, how
>>>>>>>>> does the
>>>>>>>>> list feel about soliciting the input from a broader group of
>>>>>>>>> participants?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While not an absolute requirement, I believe there is an
>>>>>>>> understanding that
>>>>>>>> some minimal level of technical expertise and interest in the
>>>>>>>> details of
>>>>>>>> the subject matter are necessary in order to provide useful or
>>>>>>>> meaningful
>>>>>>>> contribution to the process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we would exclude members of the general public (users) then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did I say exclude? "not an absolute requirement", an "interest
>>>>>> in the details" are needed for a "meaningful contribution". None of
>>>>>> that means exclude in my book, it simply means that participation
>>>>>> takes effort and if you want people to take you seriously you need to
>>>>>> make a effort. That is true in many parts of civil society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ===============================================
>>>>>> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
>>>>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>>>>>> Office of Information Technology
>>>>>> University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
>>>>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
>>>>>> ===============================================
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PPML
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>
>