<div dir="ltr"><div>Agreed.... As much as I do not like plurality, it is far better than an arbitrary percentage in my opinion. I think an arbitrary percentage is less likely to be agreed upon, whereas plurality says what the community seems to want. That is, a portion of one's holding/business, that is in fact more than significant...it is most significant.<br>
<br></div>bd<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Farmer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 9/14/13 22:58 , Matthew Petach wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why not simply use a phrase like "significant fraction" rather than<br>
"plurality"?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The problem with significant fraction, its overly vague, while plurality may not be a commonly use every day word, it does have a precise meaning and in this context that is "more than any other RIR's region". However, since there are 5 regions the smallest possible plurality would be slightly more than 20% within the ARIN region. However, in most cases a plurality will be more than that.<br>
<br>
Rather than significant fraction, if the community could agree on a percentage say 20%, 25%, or maybe 30%, as a minimum percentage within the region that would be a little simpler than plurality, and be actually something staff could implement. I do not believe significant fraction as the standard would give staff a policy that can be implemented.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
change<br>
<br>
" a plurality of resources<br>
requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure and<br>
customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located<br>
outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region."<br>
<br>
to<br>
<br>
" a significant fraction of the resources requested from ARIN must be<br>
justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN<br>
service region, and any located outside the region must be interconnected<br>
to the ARIN service region."<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If we don't like plurality for whatever reason, I'd suggest;<br>
<br>
"a minimum of X% of the resources requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region."<br>
<br>
Where X% is something like 20%, 25%, or 30%.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(representing a global network that spans 4 RIRs, but has no<br>
customers, I also advocate changing from "and customers"<br>
to "or customers", to relieve networks such as the one I work<br>
for from being unfairly excluded from obtaining ARIN resources.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm ok with "technical infrastructure or customers", I've been debating between, and, or, and and/or myself. Are there any objections to "technical infrastructure or customers"?<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I will also note for the record that as port density increases,<br>
the number of devices we use is going down, not up.<br>
<br>
They cost a metric shit ton more, and suck up more power<br>
and need more cooling--but if you're measuring by "number<br>
of boxes" rather than "capability of boxes", I think the expectation<br>
that the number of boxes in a network will always be increasing,<br>
as someone else further down in the thread claimed, is prima<br>
facie false.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think we want to be measuring the size of the network, at least the number of devices used to build the network. Just that there is a network, or portion of a global network, within the region.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Matt<br>
<br>
(for the record, while I'm suggesting alternate language that<br>
I think might be more palatable, as currently proposed,<br>
I oppose this proposal)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Do you opposed to the whole approach? Or, Are there changes to the text that would allow you to support the Draft? Or, is there another approach to the problem you would propose?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
-- <br>
==============================<u></u>==================<br>
David Farmer Email: <a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
Office of Information Technology<br>
University of Minnesota<br>
2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:1-612-626-0815" value="+16126260815" target="_blank">1-612-626-0815</a><br>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:1-612-812-9952" value="+16128129952" target="_blank">1-612-812-9952</a><br>
==============================<u></u>==================<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<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" target="_blank">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/<u></u>listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>