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: Against 2013-4 (William Herrin)
2. Re: Against 2013-4 (Kevin Kargel)
3. Re: Against 2013-4 (Blake Dunlap)
4. Re: Against 2013-4 (John Santos)
5. Re: Against 2013-4 (Steven Ryerse)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:07:57 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Jason Schiller <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<cap-gugxgw-bulnqyg2jtlfrf5bubwscublhcteahrchnr84...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
> If people want to throw out the current principles of stewardship,
> and create a new set of principles that are better than the ones
> we already have (maybe we got it wrong the first time), I support
> that, and wish you the best of luck, but believe this to be a very
> contentious and difficult to make progress.
>
> I am trying to simply document our current stewardship principles,
> and have mostly lifted text from RFC 2050, the NRPM and the
> PDP, such that these guiding ideas do not get lost if RFC 2050
> is deprecated.
Hi Jason,
However it was intended, it's being perceived as an attempt to squelch
the folks who've expressed a growing dissatisfaction with RFC 2050 and
the more dated concepts it proposes. Nor is that perception mistaken.
To achieve your stated goal you'd effectively have to disregard the
input of a relatively broad swath of the participating community. Best
case outcome, you divide the community over this.
Trying to develop what the principles *should be* is likely to be as
contentious as you suspect. But whether or not we achieve a proposal
with broad consent, we'd at least have moved the thinking process in a
forward direction.
> Maybe a better way to phrase this question is:
>
> If this draft policy is passed, what changes to the current ARIN
> practices do you oppose?
I vehemently oppose this draft policy as written. It's proposes
atavistic reversion, propping up too many concepts that either have
died or ought to.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:45:57 -0500
From: Kevin Kargel <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I for one am a supporter of the needs basis. As I have said before, if we
eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request everything
that is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.
My perception is that the ARIN community is strongly biased to support needs
basis and there is a very vocal minority trying to eliminate it so that they
can create a market they can profit by. I don't read the opposition to needs
basis as having anything to do with the good of the community, though there
have been many mutations of the spin on it to try and advertise it that way.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:17 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:37 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote:
> I take issue with the assumption that "this community" is strongly for needs
> based assignments. Certainly there are folks in this community who
> frequently and sometimes loudly voice their support for needs based
> assignment policies. Then of course there are folks in this community like
> me who are vehemently against needs based assignments and I certainly have
> voiced that frequently and sometimes loudly. There have been others who have
> done so as well from time to time.
It is not an assumption. It is reflected in the numbers each time this question
has been raised in a public policy meeting throughout ARIN's history.
Owen
_______________________________________________
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.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:25:34 -0500
From: Blake Dunlap <[email protected]>
To: Kevin Kargel <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<cajvb4tky_uwyuvf2dfgxykb7bwqp6teq7vw_u10yzgaywdv...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Now legitimately, I don't think some or maybe even most of the advocates of
dropping needs basis are in it for personal gain. There are at least a few
if not a lot of them that genuinely believe that some version of a "free"
market is the best solution to directing goods to those who should have
them. Let's not marginalize them with accusations of self profit
motivation, it needlessly creates animosity and an us vs them attitude.
-Blake
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Kargel <[email protected]> wrote:
> I for one am a supporter of the needs basis. As I have said before, if we
> eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request
> everything that is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.
>
> My perception is that the ARIN community is strongly biased to support
> needs basis and there is a very vocal minority trying to eliminate it so
> that they can create a market they can profit by. I don't read the
> opposition to needs basis as having anything to do with the good of the
> community, though there have been many mutations of the spin on it to try
> and advertise it that way.
>
> Kevin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:37 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I take issue with the assumption that "this community" is strongly for
> needs based assignments. Certainly there are folks in this community who
> frequently and sometimes loudly voice their support for needs based
> assignment policies. Then of course there are folks in this community like
> me who are vehemently against needs based assignments and I certainly have
> voiced that frequently and sometimes loudly. There have been others who
> have done so as well from time to time.
>
> It is not an assumption. It is reflected in the numbers each time this
> question has been raised in a public policy meeting throughout ARIN's
> history.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130604/e7a73b03/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:08:36 -0400
From: John Santos <[email protected]>
To: Kevin Kargel <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
My thinking exactly.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> I for one am a supporter of the needs basis. As I have said before, if we
> eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request
> everything that is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.
>
> My perception is that the ARIN community is strongly biased to support needs
> basis and there is a very vocal minority trying to eliminate it so that they
> can create a market they can profit by. I don't read the opposition to needs
> basis as having anythin
> g to do with the good of the community, though there have been many mutations
> of the spin on it to try and advertise it that way.
>
> Kevin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:37 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I take issue with the assumption that "this community" is strongly for
> > needs based assignments. Certainly there are folks in this community who
> > frequently and sometimes loudly voice their support for needs based
> > assignment policies. Then of course the
> re are folks in this community like me who are vehemently against needs based
> assignments and I certainly have voiced that frequently and sometimes loudly.
> There have been others who have done so as well from time to time.
>
> It is not an assumption. It is reflected in the numbers each time this
> question has been raised in a public policy meeting throughout ARIN's history.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:52:08 +0000
From: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
To: Blake Dunlap <[email protected]>, Kevin Kargel
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<5b9e90747fa2974d91a54fcfa1b8ad120135e74...@eni-mail.eclipse-networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
My vote is against.
I think that saying that the ?vocal? community fairly represents the entire
ARIN community is presumptuous at best. I?m just pulling up the /8 allocation
holders again and I would ask:
GE has a /8 ? what do they think about this? ? I?ve never seen a post from a GE
email address in this forum. How about AT&T ? what do they think? I don?t
have a clue from reading posts in this forum. How about Xerox or Apple or Ford
or Halliburton. They all have /8?s. I can?t recall seeing any emails from any
of those allocation holders either. And of course there are many more /8
holders I?ve not mentioned. Then add all of the Legacy holders and all of the
allocation holders that have received allocations since ARIN was created - and
it is a very very slim percentage of all of the ARIN stakeholders who ever
comment in this forum.
Who out there knows what all of these stakeholder think? I don?t think anybody
knows. So to make comments in this forum that presupposes that this entire
community feels one way or another is inaccurate because nobody really knows.
Of course we could ask everyone in the ARIN community to comment.
And before anyone says that they could comment if they wish, I don?t see
anywhere in my Legacy paperwork that says I(they) have to participate in this
community to be a stakeholder. This community needs to be open minded and not
closed minded - and it needs to take into consideration all ARIN stakeholders
and not just the ones that decide to comment.
Free markets with reasonable governance always work. Central planning and
control always fails and always provides uneven results. Needs based testing
is central planning! The current policies are producing uneven results.
It is time to halt the current needs based allocations.
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
[Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]?
Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Blake Dunlap
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:26 AM
To: Kevin Kargel
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Now legitimately, I don't think some or maybe even most of the advocates of
dropping needs basis are in it for personal gain. There are at least a few if
not a lot of them that genuinely believe that some version of a "free" market
is the best solution to directing goods to those who should have them. Let's
not marginalize them with accusations of self profit motivation, it needlessly
creates animosity and an us vs them attitude.
-Blake
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Kargel
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I for one am a supporter of the needs basis. As I have said before, if we
eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request everything
that is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.
My perception is that the ARIN community is strongly biased to support needs
basis and there is a very vocal minority trying to eliminate it so that they
can create a market they can profit by. I don't read the opposition to needs
basis as having anything to do with the good of the community, though there
have been many mutations of the spin on it to try and advertise it that way.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:17 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:37 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I take issue with the assumption that "this community" is strongly for needs
> based assignments. Certainly there are folks in this community who
> frequently and sometimes loudly voice their support for needs based
> assignment policies. Then of course there are folks in this community like
> me who are vehemently against needs based assignments and I certainly have
> voiced that frequently and sometimes loudly. There have been others who have
> done so as well from time to time.
It is not an assumption. It is reflected in the numbers each time this question
has been raised in a public policy meeting throughout ARIN's history.
Owen
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130604/23445e8c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1473 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130604/23445e8c/attachment.jpg>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 96, Issue 13
*****************************************
