[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
> If people want to throw out the current principles of stewardship,
> and create a new set of principles that are better than the ones
> we already have (maybe we got it wrong the first time), I support
> that, and wish you the best of luck, but believe this to be a very
> contentious and difficult to make progress.
>
> I am trying to simply document our current stewardship principles,
> and have mostly lifted text from RFC 2050, the NRPM and the
> PDP, such that these guiding ideas do not get lost if RFC 2050
> is deprecated.

Hi Jason,

However it was intended, it's being perceived as an attempt to squelch
the folks who've expressed a growing dissatisfaction with RFC 2050 and
the more dated concepts it proposes. Nor is that perception mistaken.
To achieve your stated goal you'd effectively have to disregard the
input of a relatively broad swath of the participating community. Best
case outcome, you divide the community over this.

Trying to develop what the principles *should be* is likely to be as
contentious as you suspect. But whether or not we achieve a proposal
with broad consent, we'd at least have moved the thinking process in a
forward direction.


> Maybe a better way to phrase this question is:
>
> If this draft policy is passed, what changes to the current ARIN
> practices do you oppose?

I vehemently oppose this draft policy as written. It's proposes
atavistic reversion, propping up too many concepts that either have
died or ought to.

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