<div dir="ltr">In line<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Chris Grundemann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com" target="_blank">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello all,<br>
<br>
As the shepherd for ARIN-2013-4, I'd like to note that while the<br>
initial conversation on this draft policy was fairly constructive,<br>
more recent comments have gone a bit off topic. Rather than debating<br>
the history of internet governance it would be very helpful for the AC<br>
to understand the general sentiment of this community with regard to<br>
the draft policy more directly.<br>
<br>
With that in mind, I'd like to gather opinion and thoughts on several<br>
key questions. These questions should be answered in terms of how you<br>
believe ARIN should operate today and into the future in order to<br>
uphold its goal of stewardship of the Internet number resources in its<br>
care.<br>
<br>
1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need<br>
(Conservation/Sustainability)?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style> Yes </div><div style><br></div><div style> There also seems to be an associated concept that is has some </div><div style> level of "fairness" That is everyone gets what they need.</div>
<div style> To borrow for Heather Schiller <a href="http://imbloghoppin.blogspot.com/2011/08/power-of-bandaid.html">http://imbloghoppin.blogspot.com/2011/08/power-of-bandaid.html</a></div><div style><br></div><div style>
This is the way its been done, is seems somewhat fair, if we are going</div><div style> to change it feels like changing the rules of the game part way through.</div><div style> I would like to understand why the change is needed, and how is the </div>
<div style> new approach "more fair".</div><div style><br></div><div style> I hear the arguments that not everyone feels like they can get what they </div><div style> need. In my mind that is an argument for modifying what need is in the</div>
<div style> number policy, not an argument to get rid of the principle of needs based.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
2) Do you support the principle of hierarchical aggregation (Routability)?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style> Yes </div><div style><br></div><div style> The original concept here was hierarchal aggregation. Maybe that was</div>
<div style> short sighted, and it is possible that routing may be done differently or </div><div style> equipment could drastically change such that table size is not an issue.</div><div style> As of now it is ture, we should reference it. But maybe the we should have</div>
<div style> a safety valve to let us out of this requirement. maybe the over arching </div><div style> principle needs to be something like minamize impact on routing operations</div><div style><br></div><div style>
When in doubt, when there is arguments, keep the original principle. But if</div><div style> the community agrees the original authors were short sighted, and they </div><div style> really mean "minamize impact on routing operations" (or some such) then </div>
<div style> lets update it.</div><div style><br></div><div style> Our goals wrt the draft text should be:</div><div style> 1. correctly document RFC 2050 principles</div><div style> 2. correctly document principles that have already been derived from RFC 2050</div>
<div style> 3. modify principles where they conflict with current policy / practice if the </div><div style> community agrees that the existing policy / practice should stand</div><div style> 4. modernize the the principles where there is no impact on existing policy / practice</div>
<div style> 5. change the principles in a way that changes existing policy / practice </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
3) Do you support the principle of uniqueness (Registration)?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style> Yes</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
4) Do you support the goal of balancing these principles with each<br>
other under the overarching principle of Stewardship?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style> Yes</div><div style><br></div><div style>I think it is important to point our these principles are not supposed to</div>
<div style>change the current ARIN policies or practices, but rather be high level</div><div style>principles of things we value and consider when crafting policy.</div><div style><br></div><div style>In theory RFC 2050 has already influenced current policy.</div>
<div style>In theory this draft says nothing new from RFC 2050 and its derived </div><div style>principles.</div><div style><br></div><div style>There is a lot a wiggle room in balancing these principles, and the </div><div style>
draft even suggests that when comparing the appropriate balance </div><div style>for IPv4 vs IPv6.</div><div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Please feel free to provide your thoughts on each of these items as<br>
general principles. Please state a definitive support or do not<br>
support for each individual principle/goal and provide a brief<br>
rational for that position. For now I'd like to ask that we evaluate<br>
the principles generally - and not to argue with each others opinions<br>
but simply to each state our own. Once we have a sense of the<br>
community support, we can then dig into specific text for each item<br>
based on the level of support and the rationale behind that level of<br>
support.<br>
<br>
This will be very helpful as we decide our next steps with this draft policy.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
~Chris<br>
<br>
--<br>
@ChrisGrundemann<br>
<a href="http://chrisgrundemann.com" target="_blank">http://chrisgrundemann.com</a><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><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></div>