<div dir="ltr"><div><div>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 I believe that 2050 is out of date.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.<br>
<br></div>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.<br>
<br></div>bd<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jason Schiller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Bill,<div><br></div><div>I think I see the crux of the issue here.</div><div><br></div><div>If people want to throw out the current principles of stewardship, </div>
<div>and create a new set of principles that are better than the ones </div>
<div>we already have (maybe we got it wrong the first time), I support </div><div>that, and wish you the best of luck, but believe this to be a very </div><div>contentious and difficult to make progress.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I am trying to simply document our current stewardship principles,</div><div>and have mostly lifted text from RFC 2050, the NRPM and the </div><div>PDP, such that these guiding ideas do not get lost if RFC 2050</div>
<div>is deprecated.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Maybe a better way to phrase this question is:</div><div><br></div><div>If this draft policy is passed, what changes to the current ARIN </div>
<div>practices do you oppose?</div><div><br></div><div>___Jason</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, William Herrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> What we need at this point is a high level discussion, about the general<br>
> direction.<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Jason,<br>
<br>
Agreed.<br>
<div><br>
> I'm not sure a discussion of merits of needs based allocation / assignment<br>
> is useful at this point in the discussion.<br>
><br>
</div><div>> Neither is it helpful to discuss alternate flavors of<br>
> conservation at this time.<br>
<br>
</div>Disagree. We have to decide whether these are core on ancillary. As<br>
written they're a part of the high-level principles. I don't think<br>
they belong there.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
> I made a conscious effort minimize modernizing the policy and believe I<br>
> did so only where the language we use has clarified the principle and is<br>
> consistent with current ARIN policy and operations.<br>
> The thought here<br>
> was to not change the status quo, and simply document what is the<br>
> already agreed upon basis of the current state of things.<br>
<br>
</div>That's exactly the problem. If we don't want to change the status quo<br>
then we can't start from RFC 2050 because we've moved way beyond it<br>
and are on the precipice of moving far further.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
> Should ARIN policy and operations be changed to match the principle?<br>
> (Did we make a wrong term and abandon a principle we should not have?)<br>
<br>
</div>In time. The principles should apply to new policy as we find it<br>
needful to write.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
> Should the principle be modified to make holes for the ARIN practice?<br>
> (The principle is true, but it doesn't apply here due to this history)<br>
<br>
</div>If we get the principles right then there shouldn't be any holes that<br>
we actively want to preserve. The presence of a hole highlights an<br>
error in the proposed principles.<br>
<br>
Take Legacy Registrants for example. Are they a hole in the<br>
principles? Or is the principle missing or miswritten? Why isn't the<br>
principle, "We leave the early adoption registrations alone until they<br>
change."<br>
<div><div><br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
--<br>
William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com" target="_blank">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<a href="http://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank">http://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
</font></span></div></div></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br>
</font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|<a href="tel:571-266-0006" value="+15712660006" target="_blank">571-266-0006</a></font></div>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br>
</font></div></span></div></font>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>