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

[Jimmy Hess]

On 6/13/13, Paul Vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:
> William Herrin wrote: >> That having been said, this is 2013 not 1996. Justified need and free
>> market are opposite sides of a partisan divide. Your draft takes a position.
> from where i sit, jason's draft takes ARIN's position, both current and prior.

Not really.  It's re-asserting a prior statement of position, that now
apparently goes away by default. Since ARIN is the community....
"ARIN's position" is far more complicated than the formal assertions
of rfc2050  (which is mostly obsolete, and mostly ignored anyways).

There is a big difference between an informal assertion of policy
position, an interpretation of position by ARIN staff,  an old
"outdated"  formal position,  and a newly proposed formal position.


The  new formal position on guiding principles should be 100%  in line
with the broadest consensus  of the community, or it should not be
adopted.

Furthemore, if there is wide contention ("partisan spread");  then the
proposed formal guiding principles  are wrong,  because the community
(which by definition _is_ ARIN), then is not entirely in agreement
with the new position document,  that is what that would mean,
and accepting the draft in that case, could cause more harm than rejecting it.


And the draft does not merely  restate accepted RIR principles, but
explicitly asserts some bits of language as principles which are not
generally accepted as principles;  things like "Justified need",
becoming promoted to guiding principle, instead of just conservation.

> i disagree that current guiding principles are by definition
> noncontentious.

If prior principles have become contentious,  then by definition,
re-asserting them would be contentious.

> if you would like to test the waters regarding a change to ARIN's
> guiding principle in the future, there's a policy process available to you.

There is also the policy process available of not approving drafts as
"guiding principles" that the community does not agree should become
or be "re-asserted" or "strengthened" or made broader in some way as
principles.


> but hijacking a relatively tame proposal which would merely keep the
> status quo, because here and now is a convenient place and time to
> advance your own cause, is unprofessional.

The proposal here is not so tame; in that it does something to change
the status quo, or what happens in the absence of the draft,  it
asserts some new things that were not (at least formally) principles
previously.


Last I checked, PPML  list  is for candid discussion of the policy
proposals; I understand the implication to be labelling participants
as unprofessional, as having alterior motive or malicious agenda based
on their choice of which opinion they expressed;   falls  directly
under the category of ad-hominem attack,  and I frown upon that very
strongly...
"Discussion of a draft" or "opposition to a draft" is not a hijacking.


Especially, if the draft claims to be asserting principles which are
known and widely accepted, which in fact, are more contentious
assertions.



> paul
--
-JH