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

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Fri Jun 7 11:18:10 EDT 2013


In line


On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> As the shepherd for ARIN-2013-4, I'd like to note that while the
> initial conversation on this draft policy was fairly constructive,
> more recent comments have gone a bit off topic. Rather than debating
> the history of internet governance it would be very helpful for the AC
> to understand the general sentiment of this community with regard to
> the draft policy more directly.
>
> With that in mind, I'd like to gather opinion and thoughts on several
> key questions. These questions should be answered in terms of how you
> believe ARIN should operate today and into the future in order to
> uphold its goal of stewardship of the Internet number resources in its
> care.
>
> 1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
> (Conservation/Sustainability)?
>

    Yes

    There also seems to be an associated concept that is has some
    level of "fairness"  That is everyone gets what they need.
    To borrow for Heather Schiller
http://imbloghoppin.blogspot.com/2011/08/power-of-bandaid.html

    This is the way its been done, is seems somewhat fair, if we are going
    to change it feels like changing the rules of the game part way through.
    I would like to understand why the change is needed, and how is the
    new approach "more fair".

   I hear the arguments that not everyone feels like they can get what they
   need.  In my mind that is an argument for modifying what need is in the
   number policy, not an argument to get rid of the principle of needs
based.

>
> 2) Do you support the principle of hierarchical aggregation (Routability)?
>

   Yes

   The original concept here was hierarchal aggregation.  Maybe that was
    short sighted, and it is possible that routing may be done differently
or
    equipment could drastically change such that table size is not an issue.
    As of now it is ture, we should reference it.  But maybe the we should
have
    a safety valve to let us out of this requirement.  maybe the over
arching
    principle needs to be something like minamize impact on routing
operations

    When in doubt, when there is arguments, keep the original principle.
 But if
    the community agrees the original authors were short sighted, and they
    really mean "minamize impact on routing operations" (or some such) then
    lets update it.

   Our goals wrt the draft text should be:
    1. correctly document RFC 2050 principles
    2. correctly document principles that have already been derived from
RFC 2050
    3. modify principles where they conflict with current policy / practice
if the
         community agrees that the existing policy / practice should stand
    4. modernize the the principles where there is no impact on existing
policy / practice
    5. change the principles in a way that changes existing policy /
practice

>
> 3) Do you support the principle of uniqueness (Registration)?
>

    Yes


>
> 4) Do you support the goal of balancing these principles with each
> other under the overarching principle of Stewardship?
>

    Yes

I think it is important to point our these principles are not supposed to
change the current ARIN policies or practices, but rather be high level
principles of things we value and consider when crafting policy.

In theory RFC 2050 has already influenced current policy.
In theory this draft says nothing new from RFC 2050 and its derived
principles.

There is a lot a wiggle room in balancing these principles, and the
draft even suggests that when comparing the appropriate balance
for IPv4 vs IPv6.


>
> Please feel free to provide your thoughts on each of these items as
> general principles. Please state a definitive support or do not
> support for each individual principle/goal and provide a brief
> rational for that position. For now I'd like to ask that we evaluate
> the principles generally - and not to argue with each others opinions
> but simply to each state our own. Once we have a sense of the
> community support, we can then dig into specific text for each item
> based on the level of support and the rationale behind that level of
> support.
>
> This will be very helpful as we decide our next steps with this draft
> policy.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Chris
>
> --
> @ChrisGrundemann
> http://chrisgrundemann.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130607/485890e5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list