[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised

[Chris Grundemann]

Hi all,

The words used were carefully chosen:

"The principle of conservation guarantees sustainability of the
Internet through efficient utilization of unique number resources."

Let me shed some light on why.

Conservation[1] is the act of conserving. It is "the management of
human use of natural resources for current public benefit and
sustainable social and economic utilization." It is also the
"prevention of injury, decay, *waste,* or loss." Sustainability[2], on
the other hand, is "the ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or
confirmed." Something is sustainable when it is "able to be
maintained" and "capable of being supported." When reviewing the
deffinitions of these words we see that conservation is an act or
action while sustainability is a state, condition, or quality.

Therefor, sustainability is the goal (the desired state) and
conservation is the principle (the how) used to meet that goal, hence
the wording used. I hope that helps clear up any lingering confusion.

Cheers,
~Chris

[1] - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservation
[2] - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sustainability



On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
> On 7/9/13 5:57 AM, Bill Darte wrote:
>> ... the terms are near synonyms, but if anything....sustainable use as it
>> relates to IPv4 suggests that we intend to continue the use of IPv4 in
>> perpetuity....which I am against.  Conservation as a principle
>> suggests again to me..that we carefully allocate/assign through
>> technical/documented/justified need until the resource is no longer
>> available or practicable....
>
> Not everyone hears the same dog whistle.
>
> An agency of government delegated some authority relevant to some
> asset created by government.
>
> Could that agency have meant, when making that delegation of
> authority, that the delegation included the independent disposal of
> the asset? I don't think the answer to that is "yes".
>
> Is conservation of an asset indistinguishable from the use of the
> asset? Here "use" means allocation of one or more values expressed in
> 32 bits not otherwise allocated. A conservation goal could be met by
> ending allocation while one or more values expressed in 32 bits are
> not otherwise allocated. In simpler terms, turning off the v4
> allocation today would satisfy a conservation principle. It would not
> meet any definition of a use principle that involved any further
> allocations, from an all-remaining-to-X-tomorrow regime to
> one-a-day-to-each-X-Y-Z regime. The principles of "conservation" and
> "allocation" may therefore be distinguished, and "allocation without a
> definite end" in particular.
>
> I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest turning off v4 today, or tomorrow,
> for large values of tomorrow, but to distinguish between things that
> are offered as "near synonyms" it is necessary to ask "how do they
> differ?"
>
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com