[arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Thu Aug 9 15:18:02 EDT 2012

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 absolutely wrong and it is bad policy!

Arin's mission statement says:  "Applying the principles of stewardship, 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.  It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways to deny resources.  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'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.

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.  The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus - 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.  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!

Steven L Ryerse
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:45 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

On 8/8/12 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> You can mince words but unless you can tell me what other organization 
> I can go to get vendor independent IP addresses assigned for North 
> America then ARIN is indeed a monopoly.  The phone analogy portion 
> that applies to this discussion is the monopoly portion of my 
> comments.  The phone company has a monopoly and ARIN has a monopoly.  
> Because of this they have certain obligations.  Since ARIN sometimes 
> decides to not share everything they do with this community, like the 
> Microsoft/Nortel agreement they chose not to share with us, then 
> obviously they do have the authority to make decisions without the 
> approval of this community - as they should as an independent 
> corporation.  I applaud their willingness to listen to the community 
> and this is one member of the community who is pointing out a policy 
> that is contrary to their mission and they should fix it for all of 
> us.  Also this community plus a lot of other Internet users in North 
> America is essentially the customers of ARI
 N.  Any o
rganization worth their salt will work with their "customers" to help solve business problems and not let a silly policy get in the way of conducting business.  That is what I am asking for here.  ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us.  

ARIN can't help you. They have no obligation to you or anyone. Policy is policy. We, the communicate, made it, not ARIN. ARIN is only doing what we wish them to do through the policy process.

There is not a "willingness" to listen to the community, rather that's how policies come to be. ARIN nor ARIN staff are allowed to propose policy. So you're barking up the wrong tree going after ARIN. You should be going after the community (everyone on this list) for making policy the way it is today.

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list