Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles (Jimmy Hess)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles (CJ Aronson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 04:02:13 -0500
From: Jimmy Hess <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles
Message-ID:
<caaawwbvxmdj3bu6gshvxg8qpvbm1rmyf7rr2ly2ejkqapoq...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/31/13, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
Agreed... actually.. I rather prefer the principles residing in
RFC2050, outside the policy. For the simple reason, that the burden
of changing RFC2050 is a lot higher -- actually, RFC2050 is
"immutable" document.
The RIR principles are not something that should not change daily; or
at some author's whim to change policy, and "tune" the principle to
reflect $flavour_of_the_month.
There should be the fundamental principles of the RIRs accurately
represented in an immutable or near-immutable document residing
outside policy and outside the PDP (like RFC2050), that requires a
much higher "burden" than the PDP for a change to occur.
But a global policy might work.
E.g. Statements of fundamental principles should be things that
rarely change; the importance of the principle is more strongly
emphasized, then.
Oh... and just because RFC2050 is no longer the latest revision of
that document, doesn't mean the policy can't continue to refer to
that version.
I see no urgent need to start adding bits and pieces of 'principles'
to the policy, as an attempted substitute.
> I oppose watering it down. Those principles applied before ARIN existed, so
> it's really
> not a problem to apply them to ARIN as well.
> Owen
--
-JH
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:52:39 -0600
From: CJ Aronson <[email protected]>
To: Jimmy Hess <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles
Message-ID:
<cac6jzkrawoeg4fob12kzc16ajwjtndty30nlveeb82u2uag...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Jimmy
Since a global RIR policy is defined as a policy that directly affects the
interaction between RIRs and the IANA, this cannot by definition be a
global RIR policy. There is no mechanism for any other kind of global RIR
policy. Since it 2050bis will replace 2050 and it seemed that we would be
unable to get these items in 2050bis, some of us felt that getting them
into ARIN policy would be helpful. Maybe other RIRs would follow suit.
I agree that these shouldn't be changed very often at all.
----Cathy
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/31/13, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Agreed... actually.. I rather prefer the principles residing in
> RFC2050, outside the policy. For the simple reason, that the burden
> of changing RFC2050 is a lot higher -- actually, RFC2050 is
> "immutable" document.
>
> The RIR principles are not something that should not change daily; or
> at some author's whim to change policy, and "tune" the principle to
> reflect $flavour_of_the_month.
>
> There should be the fundamental principles of the RIRs accurately
> represented in an immutable or near-immutable document residing
> outside policy and outside the PDP (like RFC2050), that requires a
> much higher "burden" than the PDP for a change to occur.
>
> But a global policy might work.
>
> E.g. Statements of fundamental principles should be things that
> rarely change; the importance of the principle is more strongly
> emphasized, then.
>
>
>
>
> Oh... and just because RFC2050 is no longer the latest revision of
> that document, doesn't mean the policy can't continue to refer to
> that version.
>
> I see no urgent need to start adding bits and pieces of 'principles'
> to the policy, as an attempted substitute.
>
>
> > I oppose watering it down. Those principles applied before ARIN existed,
> so
> > it's really
> > not a problem to apply them to ARIN as well.
>
> > Owen
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130601/cf120717/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 96, Issue 1
****************************************
