[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

Blake Dunlap ikiris at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 19:13:30 EDT 2013


I for one also see a strong support for needs basis, and a strong minority
that is obsessed with removing regulation in general. That's just one voice
though and should be viewed as such, as I believe we should also go with
what the majority wishes.
 On Jun 3, 2013 5:39 PM, "Bill Darte" <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the experience prior to 2050 is mute.  I believe that 2050 is out
> of date.  I think this conversation is exactly the conversation that need
> be engaged around this Draft Policy and around the subject of new needs
> basis.  I do wish to point out that all of the current NRPM policy has been
> created by the broader community and changing the needs-basis of IP address
> allocations/assignments means gaining a community consensus for this
> through the Policy Development Process.
>
> Simply saying there is no longer community support for this principle
> seems insupportable by the overwhelming and continuing support shown in the
> policy development process since at least 1997.  I detect no similar
> support in opposition.  But, I'm hopeful that those supporting both
> positions speak on the subject.
>
> bd
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> ___Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130603/7e0afa73/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list