[arin-ppml] ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles / Request for General Thoughts

[Jason Schiller]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> > Jason's closed-door partisan draft.

I appreciate this is a difficult topic.

Many of us are passionate that ARIN should do the right thing.

This is complicated by feeling like IPs are a community resource,
and weighing the best interest of the community,
and our particular company (or type of organization).

Bearing that in mind, I tried to narrow the scope and change,
in an effort to to make this as least controversial as possible.

I tried to keep this draft as simply recording the current state of things,
and not modify current ARIN policy or practices.

I tired to keep the text as much like the original RFC 2050 text,
what is in the PDP, and other parts of the NRPM,
and tried to deviate from the text only when more modern language
clarified our current thinking about the principles of stewardship in
RFC 2050 and reflected our current ARIN polices and practices.

When it was clear that some current practices were in conflict with the
draft text, in fact the original RFC 2050 text, I suggested that my
intention
was not to move the needle,  that the practice should in this case stand,
(and likely stand in all cases) and we need to deal with these issues
once the staff assessment comes out.

Rather than talk about what the principles are, and the best way to
re-document them before RFC 2050 is deprecated, we have allowed
the discussion to turn to an even more complicated topic, what the
principles SHOULD be.

For the record, most of "my" "closed-door partisan draft" was written by
Kim Hubbard, Mark Kosters, David Conrad, Daniel Karrenberg, and
Jon Postel.

___Jason

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > First of all this is not a vote, and while I appreciate you're
> > attempts to help (I assume), they come across as a manipulative
> > attempt at controlling the conversation when the counts are not
> > accurate and are (repeatedly) preemptive.
>
> Chris,
>
> I am in no way a neutral party here. Neither, my good fellow, are you.
> You have used your office to attempt to frame debate and feedback
> closely around Jason's closed-door partisan draft. That manipulation
> exceeds any I could hope to achieve from outside.
>
> I am emphatically and unapologetically attempting to move the
> conversation away from a set of principle statements which appears to
> me to be opposed by the bulk of the participants of this forum. If you
> would have yourself respected as a neutral arbiter, roll back and
> restart where you should have: ask this community to propose text for
> core principles, deconstruct it to separable components and then seek
> your yes/nos on all that had more than token interest.
>
> Till then: pot, kettle, black.
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
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/20130613/1f936315/attachment.htm>