On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:14 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Chris Grundemann > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Providing false information and flooding > > That's twice now you've accused me of lying. Let's put that to the test. > > Here's my data: http://bill.herrin.us/network/principles.html > > I respectfully request that anyone who believes I have misrecorded > their response let me know so that I may correct it.
Chris, Four days and no requested corrections later... I'll forgo your apology for the false accusation but now that we've confirmed that I accurately counted the 20 folks who chose to respond publicly to your query, let me help you understand what they told you. The first thing they told you is that 2013-4's principle 3 (unique assignment through accurate registration) has unanimous support. There were quibbles about the words and requests for wordsmithing but the core principle described is golden. The second thing the respondents told you is that points 1 and 2 in 2013-4 have large, majority opposition. Not just in the future. Right now. Today. Nor are folks displeased with the particular wording... those particular principles are simply unacceptable. Not just as written, as conceived. If they were ever OK, they aren't any more. But there is good news. An overwhelming majority believe that ARIN should, on principle, architect its policies and procedures to support scalable routing efforts on the Internet backbone. Only 2 of the 20 respondents opposed this. They don't agree that necessarily means hierarchy, but on a policy by policy basis they can accept hierarchy where it is technically necessary to meet ARIN's commitment to a principle of support for scalable Internet routing. The core principle that just about everyone can support is: facilitate scalable Internet routing. More, while there's strong dissent over whether justified need, free market, or some mechanism we've not yet conceived represents ARIN's future, there is strong agreement that the future must support sustainable consumption of the number resources throughout the lifetime of the protocols which use them. Only one person said burn it all down: hurry up and allocate the rest of the v4 free pool so that folks will be forced to move to IPv6. How we make sustainable policy will be this decade's recurring debate (whether you like it or not) but we broadly agree that consumption must be sustainable. Finally, there was more confusion than anything else on 2013-4's point 4 about stewardship. The text is no good, but if you rework it you might have a viable principle there as well. Congratulations. It appears to me that you have a basis for building a true consensus statement of principles. Not just for now, or historically, but for the future. This surprises the heck out of me. I thought Jason was dead on target when he said that would be near impossible to achieve. What will you do with this knowledge now that you have it? Regards, Bill "don't deny it" Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ 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.
