[arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.
springer at inlandnet.com
Fri May 6 14:20:53 EDT 2011
First of all, please let me thank you for bring up a most interesting
topic. I have read the thread through Owen's post of 5 May 2011 17:04:02,
but I want to respond to the original post, if I may, which I will do
On Thu, 5 May 2011, 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?
ARIN has spent quite some effort on outreach regarding IPV6 adoption. To
the extent that anyone wishes to pick up that banner and assist in getting
"the word" out to groups that have not received attention before,
Outstanding! However, I have the uneasy feeling that that is not exactly
what you are talking about here.
> Suppose I posted to a site like Reason magazine, which is Libertarian, inviting people to join the ARIN ppml in order to support my proposal to end needs requirements for IPv4 transfers?
This sounds like astroturfing to me.
from the wiki: "Astroturfing is a form of propaganda whose techniques
usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that
mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause."
It looks like some self regulating professional groups have and attempt to
enforce policies against this type of behavior. OTOH, what would be the
harm? Anyone with a pulse on the planet is invited to participate in the
PDP. Having followed the larger contexts of proposals and petitions that
this question seems to be posed to counter, it looks like the only effect,
might be to enable easy override of proposal abandonment through assured
petition passage. Masses of "me too" PPML posts, remote comments at
meetings and at the mike comments, unsupported by clue would seem to be
obvious. And the AC seems well armed to deal with that. Since what appears
to be going on lately is a kind of value orthogonality (free markets good
everywhere, free markets not good here), I'm not sure a million +1s is
going to have the right kind of weight to force a policy past the AC and
board in the face of widespread articulate reasoning. We might want to
guard against lots of input from say, robocallers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocalling or the dead:
> And those who oppose could post to HuffPo or some other site where opposing views might be expected to be courted.
I don't find this idea attractive myself. If I have something to say about
ARIN (rare, I know), I think I will do it here on PPML or at a meeting. I
note that a number of public advocacy industry groups have policies
against astroturfing and one that while it "does not specifically mention
astroturfing, it does require honest communication." Perhaps ARIN might
wish to formally eschew this behavior itself, while allowing it for
> Is this a horrible idea?
No. The idea itself seems unbaked. It is certainly possible and may even
> I have not acted on it, there could be large implications.
Could indeed. In a quick search I find no particular policy or PPML AUP
that addresses this proposed behavior, although the following might
# Postings by fictional or non-identifiable names and addresses.
# Posting false or fictitious statements.
# Actions, that while not described specifically here, are similar to the
AC, staff, Board or list, where would the appropriate place to address
this be? Policy proposal, ACSP, AUP edit? Or someone more lofty than me
just telling Mike to go for it? :)
> What are your thoughts?
Thanks again for a thought provoking question.
> Mike Burns
More information about the ARIN-PPML