[arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:45 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> "Not an absolute requirement" would generally translate to "not important".
>>
>> Not all proposals related to IP addressing require technical
>> knowledge. Some are business oriented such as the proposal to provide
>> address for critical infrastructure for 36 mos.  I would argue that
>
> While that is business related, it does require a certain minimal technical
> knowledge to properly evaluate the implications of the proposal to the larger
> system.
>
>> technical contributions are "not an absolute requirement" to proposals
>> such as M&A and a few others and are actually harmful when co-mingled
>> with most technical requirements beyond extremely simply and straight
>> forward non engineering concepts like utilization.
>>
> I disagree. Evaluating policy requires context. Part of that context for IP
> address policy is an understanding of the technology and the strengths,
> weaknesses, and limitations of the technology. Part of it is understanding
> the implications to the larger system of various actions and the likely
> reactions to those actions.
>

Context does not require an engineering degree or a shred of
experience as a technician. The fact that you disagree underscores the
potential of the problem that we seem to have with IP number policy.
People who are currently writing them seem to be trying to legislate
the technology instead of stewarding the numbers for the greater
overall good of the community which includes the end users.

This would seem to be an even greater argument to insure that the
general public has continued easy access. Creating classes of
participants does nothing except create harmful  inequities.

Best,

-M<