[arin-ppml] Virtual Travel Via the Internet

Thu Dec 17 19:38:06 EST 2015

Top posting here:

You could try a policy proposal, which would certainly get the AC's
attention, but this might be out of scope for policy.

In addition to Owen's pertinent comments, suggestions of a non-policy 
nature may drawn to the attention of the Board of Trustees (and others) 
via the ASCP process: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/acsp.html

My opinion only.

John Springer

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> 
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 14:30, Ron Baione <ron.baione at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>       The internet is supposed to make it easier for businesses and business people to connect and get things done faster, like, for example, recruiting business
>       people, but ironically internet governance connected groups spend most of their time physically traveling to places to get mostly nothing done, and say
>       "more work needs to be done". 
> 
> 
> I disagree. First, as a member of an Internet governance group, I travel on average a total of 10-12 days per year for this purpose. We have 10 monthly telemeetings
> per year and 3 face to face meetings. (Accounting for 6 days of travel). The remaining days are spent on traveling to other RIR meetings or to outreach events. 
> 
> In addition, I spend 5-10 hours per week or more on average dealing with related list traffic. 
> 
> As a general rule, most of the items we work on are finalized within 18 months. I think a few have dragged on as much as 36 months, but they are rare. The minimum time
> for the standard process is roughly 6 months just in the process requirements. Rarely does the community come to consensus on the first draft of any policy proposal,
> thus extending the timeframe. 
>
>       Anybody remember NamesCon 2008? Me niether. There hasn't ever been a Conference that the whole world benefitted from, because conferences in the internet
>       age are not meant for progress, conferences are just excuses for people to travel, to see and be seen, to party, in my opinion, and in my opinion proven by
>       the fact that the internet's supposed and oft-mentioned purpose is to facilitate the entire business process, making the decision making/meeting process at
>       conferences obsolete, unnecessary in a business sense, and also laughable, when some business people who could easily talk and compare business notes any
>       time of day via the internet say, "Let's wait for the conference to decide on that." Why? 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way. I can think of a few conferences where large fractions of the world have benefitted from the outcome. I also know that a great deal of
> progress on matters of substance actually does happen at parties.  I can't think of any event online or otherwise that has benefitted the entire world because the
> world is vast and diverse and there's almost never any sort of universally good choice. Any such choice goes rapidly into the no brainier category and there is little
> or no need for discussion or deliberation as there's no controversy. 
> 
> Conferences are not obsolete. There is value to human interaction in person both in structured meetings and at parties. 
>
>       So Travelers can say they are leaders who physically traveled to meet and talk with relevant business people, when I am as much of a leader writing this
>       single critique via email as they are traveling to vegas to walk around and say, "ooh, that's interesting" 1000 times. While it might be fun to do, the
>       internet community is waiting for real tangible progress and real solutions to real world problems and all the tech community has provided them in the past
>       12 months is an IWatch. I would argue that the "constant conference culture" limits real progress by getting people stuck in a never ending travel loop,
>       where all they begin to care about is the quality of the next travel destination. 
> 
> Indeed, if all they do is walk around and say that's interesting a bunch of times, they aren't much of a leader and/or it's not much of a conference. Nobody I know
> does that. 
> 
> I'm not sure why you chose to post this as a reply to our discussion of 2015-8, but it doesn't seem at all related to me. 
> 
> Owen
> 
>
>       Ron
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>;
> To: Jose R. de la Cruz III <jrdelacruz at acm.org>;
> Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>;
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8
> Sent: Sun, Dec 6, 2015 11:42:22 PM
> 
> Not speaking for John, but I don?t believe that would help because I believe that anything whichdoes not meet the definition of an ?end user? is de fact an ISP.
> 
> Creating a clear definition of ?ISP? would likely, instead, create a new category of organizations
> which fit neither defined category and suddenly find themselves without any way to interact with
> ARIN. I would not consider that to be an improvement.
> 
> It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does not meet the strict
> definition of ?End User? is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes.
> 
> Owen
>
>       On Dec 6, 2015, at 13:03 , Jose R. de la Cruz III <jrdelacruz at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> John:
> 
> Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is
> defined as "an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.", it is my opinion that the
> "exclusively" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various
> degrees of affiliation" example,  the exclusively part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in
> the reassigning that IP space to their customers?
> 
> Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP
> provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized?
> 
> Jos?
> 
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>       On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III <jrdelacruz at acm.org> wrote:
>
>             RE: ARIN-2015-8
>
>             4.     Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs?
> --->No. Why should they? 
> 
> 5.     Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)?
> ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs.
> 
> 
> I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under
> discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further
> consideration of the question:
> 
> - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many cases, 
>   but not universally.  Examples where it is less clear include university and
>   college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many 
>   entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned,
>   joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line
>   between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc.
> 
> - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven
>    by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users
>    who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information
>    in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with 
>    respect to their geolocation data. 
> 
> Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change 
> their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what 
> is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction.   For additional context,
> refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was 
> raised) - https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>