[arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.

[Owen DeLong]

>> 
>>> 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.

I did not say that it requires an engineering degree or experience
as a technician. I said it requires an understanding of the technology
and its strengths and weaknesses.

> 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.
> 
Indeed in my participation in ARIN and my time on the AC, the stewarding
of the resources for the greater overall good of the community, especially
the end users has, indeed, been my goal. However, I do not believe that
one can achieve that if one does not pay proper attention to the technical
realities of how policies are implemented and how they affect the real
world deployments of the number resources.

One cannot pay proper attention to those factors if one does not have
at least a basic understanding of the technology and its strengths
and weaknesses as I sated above.

One need look no further than the various unintended or undesired
consequences of public policies like the DMCA and the Telecom
Reform Bill to see examples of what happens when people ignorant
of the subject matter they are regulating pass regulations without
appropriate expertise.

> 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.
> 
I have not advocated creating classes of participants and would not
do so. I am all for the general public having continued easy access
to PPML. However, I still oppose the idea that policy does not
have to be technically sound.

Owen