[arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

[McTim]

hello again,

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Steven Ryerse
<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>wrote:

> With all due respect bad policies need to be changed.  Policy isn't policy
> as you say when it is bad policy.  Consensus isn't good when it is wrong.
>  ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft
> and to every other member of the Internet community in North America.
>  Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us.  All of us
> should be on the same level playing field.  The BGP policy is specifically
> designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting
> organization.


This is your perception.  It is designed to aid in the mission of
stewardship.




>  This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy!
>
> Arin's mission statement says:  "Applying the principles of stewardship



This is the bit of the mission you seem to be missing.  there is a reason
it is the first thing in the mission.



> , ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources;
> develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the
> Internet through information and educational outreach."
>
> This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate
> resources.




by applying the principles of stewardship, yes.



>  It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways
> to deny resources.



nor does it.  You just happened to have run afoul of current policy, which
you can try to change.




>  It should be finding reasons and ways to approve allocation of resources
> to everyone who needs them.  To do anything other than allocating resources
> to organizations who can demonstrate the need for those resources is the
> exact opposite of ARINs mission.  Each policy should first have to pass the
> test of: Does this policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it
> advance Internet usage?  Any policies that fail this test need to be redone
> or be removed or not approved - regardless of how well written it might be.
>


I would be in favor of such a change to the PDP.



>
> I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the
> this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over
> again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be
> fixed.  I am part of this community too.
>


You are welcome.


I doubt you will find a warm welcome if you keep insisting you  are right
and the majority is wrong however.

Everybody wants a pony, few actually get one ;-)


> I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous
> and frequently does NOT result in good policies.  If all of the polices
> that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do
> existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed?  I will give
> you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad
> policies.  In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in
> the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved.  The vast
> majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of
> slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good
> for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being
> good slaves.  This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to
> die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place.  There was a small minority
> in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong.  They were not part
> of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy"
> created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very
> WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT.  Consensuses have led to big
> trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples.
>  Thank goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this
> community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that
> governing solely by consensus is not always smart.


Most folk in the places you cite were disenfranchised.  No one is
disenfranchised in making Internet resource administration/ditribution
policies.  All are welcome, all have an equal voice in this meritocracy.




>  The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus


We differ in this as well.  I think the beauty of the system IS exactly is
ins Bottom-up, transparent, open and consensus based decsion making
processes.



> - but IS the ability of the Internet Community to have input into what
> ARIN does.  That is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission
> statement seeks to give the Internet Community input to its actions.  If
> the consensus of this community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should
> always be denied by ARINs board - every time.  That is their fiduciary
> responsibility!
>
> Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular
> point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really
> address my overlying point.  While that kind of dialog is positive, it
> misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be
> FULLY aligned with ARINs mission.


see the stewardship phrase.



>  Until we come to agreement that ARIN needs to fully pursue its chartered
> mission to serve EVERONE who can demonstrate need - at a mission statement
> level, arguing the various points of a policy at a low level won't help
> solve the overlying problem.  I am asking for the help of ARIN & this
> Community to correct the overlying problem first.  I hope you will join me!
>

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, just saying!!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120809/d69258b1/attachment.htm>