[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I would have to oppose most of the statements in this proposed revision of the RIR principles.

+1

> While it is a good idea to update a document written literally a generation ago for a different IPv4 world, it seems obvious to me that a lot of the thinking that went into this 2013-4 is an attempt to rigidify obsolete thinking rather than to update things. This is a backwards-looking revision that has little support in the real world.

>> Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System
>>
>> 0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)
>
> This represents confused thinking. Conservation as a
> principle does NOT necessarily mean needs-based allocation.

I agree. Needs based allocation has been called into question for good
reason these past few years. Principles should be things which aren't
in serious, active dispute.

As I said before, I think the principle we're after is sustainability.
At the policy level conservation may be an appropriate tool of
sustainability. The same for needs based allocation. Whether obsolete
thinking or best available method they're tools which serve a
principle. Neither is reasonable when standing at the top *as* a
principle.


>> 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)
>
> This section attempts to codify and make permanent
> a set of policies that were developed in the final death
> throes of IPv4.

I agree. Documentation should serve fairness and sustainability. Where
it doesn't, it should be strictly optional.


> The idea of authorizing intrusive "accounting of resources"
> is precisely the opposite of the way we need to be going,
> both in IPv4 and IPv6. We should let the market allocate
> transfers of the fully-allocated IPv4 numbers, and current
> policies, which give organizations blocks based on the
> number of networks they claim and some fill ratio, for IPv6.

That is unproven. However, if our stated principles would prevent us
from giving it a chance then our stated principles are wrong and
wrong-headed.


>> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)
>
> This aspect of the proposed revisions really went off the rails.
> First, uniqueness should be valorized as the single most fundamental and important principle of stewardship, the one to which all the other principles are subordinate. It is the most important justification for having a registry.


I agree.



>> 0.4. Stewardship
>>
>> It should be noted that efficient utilization and hierarchical
>> aggregation are often conflicting goals. All the above goals may
>> sometimes be in conflict with the interests of individual end-users or
>> Internet Service Providers.
>
> This section is also inappropriate for a principles document.
> It purports to tell the current community, as well as all
> future deliberations for the next 20-odd years, how to make
> policy tradeoffs. That is the kind of thing that should be left
> to the community itself.

This is the one spot where I disagree with you. NRPM 6.3.8 says, "In
IPv6 address policy, the goal of aggregation is considered to be the
most important." That statement has proven its worth time and again.

There will be conflicts between the principles. Rather than get lost
and break into dissension every time, we should have a statement in
the principles document which reminds us which principles are the most
important.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004