[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

[Jason Schiller]

Bill,

I do value your input and would like to hear specifically
which concepts that are popping up that have died.

I agree that open discourse and changing of minds is
indeed a good thing.

We do need to have a discussion of alternate approaches
to conservation, changing definitions of justification and
efficient utilization for various number resources.  No
doubt the needle will move and number policy is changing.

But I feel this is best accomplished in small steps, and the
smallest step is distilling out the current principles and putting
them in the NRPM.  Once we do that they exist in the NRPM
and under the current PDP can be changed through community
support, like any other part of the PDP.

But if we plant a flag in the sand and say we are unwilling to
accept this text because it includes current principles that we
think should be dead, then we are left with three options:

1. keep the  17 year old RFC 2050

2. insist more "stewardship" be added to 2050bis
    or that it only updates the current RFC 2050
    (have this fight in the IETF)

3. lose the concepts of stewardship in RFC 2050
    (I'm not sure what that does to documents that point to 2050)
    And need to start this process from ground zero


___Jason



On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130604/73cc04fa/attachment.htm>