<div dir="ltr">Bill,<div><br></div><div style>I do value your input and would like to hear specifically </div><div style>which concepts that are popping up that have died.</div><div style><br></div><div style>I agree that open discourse and changing of minds is</div>
<div style>indeed a good thing.<br><br></div><div style>We do need to have a discussion of alternate approaches </div><div style>to conservation, changing definitions of justification and </div><div style>efficient utilization for various number resources. No </div>
<div style>doubt the needle will move and number policy is changing.</div><div style><br></div><div style>But I feel this is best accomplished in small steps, and the </div><div style>smallest step is distilling out the current principles and putting </div>
<div style>them in the NRPM. Once we do that they exist in the NRPM </div><div style>and under the current PDP can be changed through community </div><div style>support, like any other part of the PDP.</div><div style><br>
</div><div style>But if we plant a flag in the sand and say we are unwilling to </div><div style>accept this text because it includes current principles that we</div><div style>think should be dead, then we are left with three options:</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>1. keep the 17 year old RFC 2050</div><div style><br></div><div style>2. insist more "stewardship" be added to 2050bis </div><div style> or that it only updates the current RFC 2050</div>
<div style> (have this fight in the IETF)</div><div style><br></div><div style>3. lose the concepts of stewardship in RFC 2050</div><div style> (I'm not sure what that does to documents that point to 2050)</div>
<div style> And need to start this process from ground zero</div><div style><br></div><div style><br></div><div style>___Jason</div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, 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 class="im">On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> If people want to throw out the current principles of stewardship,<br>
> and create a new set of principles that are better than the ones<br>
> we already have (maybe we got it wrong the first time), I support<br>
> that, and wish you the best of luck, but believe this to be a very<br>
> contentious and difficult to make progress.<br>
><br>
> I am trying to simply document our current stewardship principles,<br>
> and have mostly lifted text from RFC 2050, the NRPM and the<br>
> PDP, such that these guiding ideas do not get lost if RFC 2050<br>
> is deprecated.<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Jason,<br>
<br>
However it was intended, it's being perceived as an attempt to squelch<br>
the folks who've expressed a growing dissatisfaction with RFC 2050 and<br>
the more dated concepts it proposes. Nor is that perception mistaken.<br>
To achieve your stated goal you'd effectively have to disregard the<br>
input of a relatively broad swath of the participating community. Best<br>
case outcome, you divide the community over this.<br>
<br>
Trying to develop what the principles *should be* is likely to be as<br>
contentious as you suspect. But whether or not we achieve a proposal<br>
with broad consent, we'd at least have moved the thinking process in a<br>
forward direction.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> Maybe a better way to phrase this question is:<br>
><br>
> If this draft policy is passed, what changes to the current ARIN<br>
> practices do you oppose?<br>
<br>
</div>I vehemently oppose this draft policy as written. It's proposes<br>
atavistic reversion, propping up too many concepts that either have<br>
died or ought to.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);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>|571-266-0006</font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br>
</font></div></span></div></font>
</div>