<br>Cautiously in favour of the idea, but I think careful rewording is needed;<br>was originally against, until I read Jason's follow-up explaining<br>intent; but as currently written I don't think I could support it.<br>
<br>So--advise AC shepherd work with authors on clarifying<br>this and then bring it back.<br><br>Matt<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:12 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 9:50 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> I would have to oppose most of the statements in this proposed revision of the RIR principles.<br>
<br>
</div>+1<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> While it is a good idea to update a document written literally a generation ago for a different IPv4 world, it seems obvious to me that a lot of the thinking that went into this 2013-4 is an attempt to rigidify obsolete thinking rather than to update things. This is a backwards-looking revision that has little support in the real world.<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">>> Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System<br>
>><br>
>> 0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)<br>
><br>
> This represents confused thinking. Conservation as a<br>
> principle does NOT necessarily mean needs-based allocation.<br>
<br>
</div>I agree. Needs based allocation has been called into question for good<br>
reason these past few years. Principles should be things which aren't<br>
in serious, active dispute.<br>
<br>
As I said before, I think the principle we're after is sustainability.<br>
At the policy level conservation may be an appropriate tool of<br>
sustainability. The same for needs based allocation. Whether obsolete<br>
thinking or best available method they're tools which serve a<br>
principle. Neither is reasonable when standing at the top *as* a<br>
principle.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
>> 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)<br>
><br>
> This section attempts to codify and make permanent<br>
> a set of policies that were developed in the final death<br>
> throes of IPv4.<br>
<br>
</div>I agree. Documentation should serve fairness and sustainability. Where<br>
it doesn't, it should be strictly optional.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> The idea of authorizing intrusive "accounting of resources"<br>
> is precisely the opposite of the way we need to be going,<br>
> both in IPv4 and IPv6. We should let the market allocate<br>
> transfers of the fully-allocated IPv4 numbers, and current<br>
> policies, which give organizations blocks based on the<br>
> number of networks they claim and some fill ratio, for IPv6.<br>
<br>
</div>That is unproven. However, if our stated principles would prevent us<br>
from giving it a chance then our stated principles are wrong and<br>
wrong-headed.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
>> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)<br>
><br>
> This aspect of the proposed revisions really went off the rails.<br>
> First, uniqueness should be valorized as the single most fundamental and important principle of stewardship, the one to which all the other principles are subordinate. It is the most important justification for having a registry.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>I agree.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
>> 0.4. Stewardship<br>
>><br>
>> It should be noted that efficient utilization and hierarchical<br>
>> aggregation are often conflicting goals. All the above goals may<br>
>> sometimes be in conflict with the interests of individual end-users or<br>
>> Internet Service Providers.<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> This section is also inappropriate for a principles document.<br>
> It purports to tell the current community, as well as all<br>
> future deliberations for the next 20-odd years, how to make<br>
> policy tradeoffs. That is the kind of thing that should be left<br>
> to the community itself.<br>
<br>
</div>This is the one spot where I disagree with you. NRPM 6.3.8 says, "In<br>
IPv6 address policy, the goal of aggregation is considered to be the<br>
most important." That statement has proven its worth time and again.<br>
<br>
There will be conflicts between the principles. Rather than get lost<br>
and break into dissension every time, we should have a statement in<br>
the principles document which reminds us which principles are the most<br>
important.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><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>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<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>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>