[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Tue Sep 21 20:03:09 EDT 2021

It's been hours, Chris, and shouldn't you be encouraging discussion rather than the opposite?


---- On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:01:29 -0400 Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com> wrote ----

Given there was a proposal published last week that was withdrawn within hours by its author*, I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to start keeping score WRT the level of community support on this one. And while the definition of “strong support” is intentionally subjective, my four years serving on the ARIN AC have informed my opinion that the current AC looks for, at minimum, a lack of opposition from other segments of the community on a proposal that appears to have the support of only one. A proposal supported by the representatives of one segment, and by appearances so far, strongly opposed by virtually everyone else, tend to have a rather short lifetime on the AC docket.


* Technically the author doesn’t withdraw a proposal, as it’s in the AC’s hands once published. But in general, I would expect the AC to honor a proposal author’s request to abandon it.

On Sep 21, 2021, at 3:48 PM, Mike Burns <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

Hi Chris,

Not sure how experienced you are with this, but this proposal has only been out for a few hours and any talk about "keeping it alive" is a tad early.

Also, you might brush up on the concept of ad hominem. It means against the person(s). It could be only brokers who support a policy and if there are no valid objections, that support should carry the day.

Now, do you have any objections that you would care to share, other than your original one (which I think Owen dispensed with)?


---- On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:37:43 -0400 Chris Woodfield <mailto:chris at semihuman.com> wrote ----

> On Sep 21, 2021, at 2:47 PM, Mike Burns <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> wrote: 
> Hi Noah, 
> Thanks for  your thoughts, my replies are inline. 
> “Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't necessarily provide any form of network services. It does make sense for a broker to defend this model.” 
> Noah that is a meaningless ad hominem, every transfer has a recipient. 
You are not incorrect here - it takes two to tango, so to speak. And brokers are an important segment of the ARIN community, to the extent that representatives of IP brokers have been elected to the ARIN AC. 
That said, one of the requirements for a Draft Policy to move forward to an RDP is, per section 4.3:, "Changes to policy must be shown to have a strong level of support in the community in order to be adopted.” Reading the replies to this thread so far, the only community members that have voiced support for this proposal have been representatives of IP brokers. Correct me if I’ve missed any, but I see zero statements of support so far from members of any other segment of the ARIN community. 
I would be very surprised if the AC would advance to RDP a policy proposal that has support of only one segment of the community, and as far as I can tell, universal opposition from those who are not in that segment. If you are an operator, ISP, or content provider who would benefit from this, I would recommend that you speak up in order to keep this proposal alive. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net). 
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: 
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml 
> Please contact mailto: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/20210921/3b63bd04/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list