[arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1:ARINInter-RIRTransfers - Last Call
owen at delong.com
Tue Oct 25 11:48:11 EDT 2011
On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:50 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:58 PM, William Herrin wrote
>>> Scott, someone asked earlier in the thread what the rush to do this
>>> now instead of in 6 months is. I'm still waiting for someone to
>>> articulate a satisfactory answer. I don't care why it's important to
>>> APNIC registrants, I want to know why it's important to ARIN
>>> registrants that we do this right now.
>> Contrary to the opinions expressed here by some, it is important to
>> do this now because of need in the APNIC region.
> Still waiting to hear why it's important to the *ARIN region* that we
> do this now.
> I don't think anyone fails to understand why APNIC is in a hurry for
> ARIN to implement this sort of policy.
Because in the end, it is a global internet and we sink or swim together.
>> We have a
>> responsibility of stewardship. While our service region is defined
>> more narrowly, we are also part of a global community (NRO) and
>> we have a responsibility to work with the other members of the NRO
>> to accomplish good stewardship of the resources on a global scale,
>> not just within our region.
>> Hoarding resources while another region suffers under shortage
>> is not good global stewardship.
> Repeat after me. ARIN is not IANA. Our responsibility is first to our region.
Bill, repeat after me, Jingoism is not the ideal approach to resource
> Global cooperation benefits everybody, including our region. But the
> devil is in the details and those details have to well serve our
> region too. Every indication we've gotten from exploring with John
> Curran the way in which ARIN would implement the current 2011-1 draft
> has suggested problems in those details.
Personally, I believe that having all of the regions run out as close to the
same time as possible DOES serve our region in that it reduces the
probability of entering the workaround merry-go-round track that is
nicely presented in Geoff Huston's presentation from the ARIN/NANOG
joint session. Perhaps you missed it?
>>> Even if there is a good reason to rush, the conservative course of
>>> action would be to advance 2011-1 after restoring the stronger
>>> protections that were in the earlier text and then spend the next 6
>>> months talking about how to tone them down to something less onerous.
>>> That would avoid any chance of the board needing to take emergency
>>> action and, oh by the way, it's what cautious stewardship of a
>>> resource is all about.
>> There are tradeoffs in either direction and there are consequences
>> to delay just as there may be consequences to some of the holes
>> in the present draft. I honestly can't say which choice carries the
>> bigger risk and I'm not sure that anyone has enough information
>> available to make an accurate judgment on the question.
> Would you articulate the RISK of consequences you see to the ARIN
> region from delaying this policy for another 6-month cycle while we
> hash out appropriate protections?
No. Not because I don't want to, but, because it would be difficult to
or impossible to separate what I see as a result of public information
from what I see as a result of NDA information and remove the pieces
that are covered by NDA.
> Would you articular the RISK of consequences you see to the ARIN
> region from installing strong protections in an immediate policy (e.g.
> making recipients meet ARIN justified need criteria regardless of
> their region) and then toning them down with subsequent policy over
> the next 6 months?
First, your claim that the other regions have weaker justification policy
is specious at best. I suppose the easy thing to do here would be to
ask you to prove your assertion. The risk to such language is that it
would embroil the ARIN staff in a maze of language, cultural, and
other issues. Since there's no benefit to doing so as I believe that the
other RIRs already provide equivalent justification requirements and
the existing policy is an equally strong protection, it seems like a
huge unnecessary overhead and expense to ARIN.
> I have, I believe, expansively articulated the risk to the ARIN region
> from advancing this proposal with the lack of protections in the
> current draft, the main ones being:
Not really. You have, however, extensively articulated an
us against them jingoistic view of the internet.
> 1. Much easier and therefore unfair out-region access to ARIN
> transfers than in-region access.
I don't see this. It appears to me that it provides nearly identical
access to transfers.
> 2. Enabling the out-region loss of the remaining ARIN free pool.
As has been pointed out, this is a relatively minimal risk. Frankly, I also
don't see this as necessarily being a bad thing overall.
> 3. Likelihood of unforeseen and unintended consequences from rewriting
> the in-region transfer policy when only authorship of an out-region
> transfer policy was requested by the community.
I think this is much ado about nothing. The proposed changes have no effect
on the in-region transfer policy other than to expand it to include out-of-region
transfers. They do not weaken it or change the requirements in any way.
The removal of the single aggregate clause is the only change you could
hold up as an example of having unintended consequences and that change
has community consensus and is also in last call at this time under a different
More information about the ARIN-PPML