[arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.

[Mike Burns]

Hi John,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and those that came from others on this 
issue.

Although I think we all see that some of these decisions are made not on 
technical, but on philosophical or economic grounds.
I think there is an obvious danger in determining policy for billions based 
on the participation of tens.

Upon further baking of my idea, (Unbaked you called it. Don't I get credit 
at least for half-baking?)  I decided not to act on it, but I  remain in two 
minds about the question.
I consider it a topic for further discussion if anybody is interested, and 
if the debate here grows increasingly non-technical-but-partisan, then maybe 
it can be re-examined.

Regards,
Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Springer" <springer at inlandnet.com>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Serious question for the list.


> Hi Mike,
>
> 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 
> inline.
>
> 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.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
> 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: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_stuffing
>
>> 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 
> others.
>
>> Is this a horrible idea?
>
> No. The idea itself seems unbaked. It is certainly possible and may even 
> be acceptable.
>
>> 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 
> pertain:
> # 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 
> conduct described.
>
> 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.
>
> John Springer
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike Burns
>>
>>