<div dir="ltr">Jimmy,<div><br></div><div>As Chris has pointed out... there are still a lot of documents that point to </div><div>RFC2050 and reference stewardship principles, such as NRPM section 4.1.7</div><div>
<br></div><div> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four17" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four17</a></div><div><br></div><div>The problem is with recent updates, RFC-2050 lacks much of the </div>
<div>stewardship principles that people tend to point to.</div><div><br></div><div>This proposal is an attempt to collect these principles in one coherent place, </div><div>and not loose the text when the original RFC2050 is deprecated. </div>
<div>This is the only goal of this proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>It is not intended to be policy, but rather is text that has guided policy </div><div>development and it is hoped will be used to continue to guide policy </div>
<div>development.</div><div><br></div><div>It has been suggested by many that an RFC is not the right place to </div><div>record these principles as they are not prescriptions that the IETF</div><div>
places on the RIRs. </div><div><br></div><div>The PDP changes frequently, and it doesn't seem to have much </div><div>community input.</div><div><br></div><div>So that left placing these principles in the NRPM. A place that the</div>
<div>community looks after and can easily change.</div><div><br></div><div>It is possible, assuming there is community consensus on what the </div><div>principles should be, that they could be moved out of the NRPM </div>
<div>and placed in the ARIN bi-laws or some other place, but that may</div><div>take changes out the hands of the community, and make it even</div><div>more difficult to update.... I'm not sure that is a good feature.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><div>> <span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"For example, Conservation often requires greater consideration in</span></div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> IPv4 address distribution due to the limited size of the address<br>> space, Routability has a higher weight for the massive IPv6 address<br>
> space, and AS numbers place the highest value on Registration because<br>> they<br>> come from a moderately sized pool and are not subject to aggregation."<br>><br>></div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> This is no good.... we essentially have here a policy statement</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> that ARIN should apply good judgement and consideration when using</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> policy.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><div> </div><div>No. We have a suggestion that the community should carefully balance</div>
<div>these principles an use that to guide them in forming actual policy.</div><div><br></div><div style>__Jason</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jimmy Hess <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mysidia@gmail.com" target="_blank">mysidia@gmail.com</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 7/8/13, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4<br>
> RIR Principles<br>
<br>
</div>I continue to have some objection to this draft, because it is still<br>
a statement of supposed principles, not policy. Per PDP 3.2<br>
"proposals to change policy must address a clearly defined, existing<br>
or potential problem with number resource policy in the region."<br>
<br>
The purpose of ARIN policy is to define policy, not goals. The number<br>
resource policy manual is not the ARIN charter.<br>
<br>
PDP section 4 already defines principles of ARIN policy.<br>
<br>
So there does not appear to be anything to accomplish by the draft.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
"For example, Conservation often requires greater consideration in<br>
IPv4 address distribution due to the limited size of the address<br>
space, Routability has a higher weight for the massive IPv6 address<br>
space, and AS numbers place the highest value on Registration because<br>
they<br>
come from a moderately sized pool and are not subject to aggregation."<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>This is no good.... we essentially have here a policy statement<br>
that ARIN should apply good judgement and consideration when using<br>
policy.<br>
<br>
Since they are supposed to do that anyways, the statement is redundant.<br>
<br>
We dont' need a policy statement say "Care must be taken to ensure<br>
<div class="im">balance with these<br>
conflicting goals "<br>
<br>
</div>Care must be taken to ensure fairness and technical soundness given<br>
any conflicting policy....<br>
<br>
<br>
The policy itself should be introducing conflicting circumstances:<br>
It's the policy's job to get updated to resolve conflicts of that<br>
nature.<br>
<br>
Policy should provide clear implementable guidelines, not vague<br>
assertions that "you need to be careful, read the author's mind, and<br>
do whatever that person would want....".<br>
<br>
--<br>
-JH<br>
<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>
</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>