[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Mon Jun 3 17:01:02 EDT 2013


I think I see the crux of the issue here.

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.

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?


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> wrote:
> > What we need at this point is a high level discussion, about the general
> > direction.
> Hi Jason,
> Agreed.
> > I'm not sure a discussion of merits of needs based allocation /
> assignment
> > is useful at this point in the discussion.
> >
> > Neither is it helpful to discuss alternate flavors of
> > conservation at this time.
> Disagree. We have to decide whether these are core on ancillary. As
> written they're a part of the high-level principles. I don't think
> they belong there.
> > I made a conscious effort minimize modernizing the policy and believe I
> > did so only where the language we use has clarified the principle and is
> > consistent with current ARIN policy and operations.
> > The thought here
> > was to not change the status quo, and simply document what is the
> > already agreed upon basis of the current state of things.
> That's exactly the problem. If we don't want to change the status quo
> then we can't start from RFC 2050 because we've moved way beyond it
> and are on the precipice of moving far further.
> > Should ARIN policy and operations be changed to match the principle?
> > (Did we make a wrong term and abandon a principle we should not have?)
> In time. The principles should apply to new policy as we find it
> needful to write.
> > Should the principle be modified to make holes for the ARIN practice?
> > (The principle is true, but it doesn't apply here due to this history)
> If we get the principles right then there shouldn't be any holes that
> we actively want to preserve. The presence of a hole highlights an
> error in the proposed principles.
> Take Legacy Registrants for example. Are they a hole in the
> principles? Or is the principle missing or miswritten? Why isn't the
> principle, "We leave the early adoption registrations alone until they
> change."
> 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/20130603/8fef20f4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list