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.
bd On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/14/13 22:58 , Matthew Petach wrote: > > Why not simply use a phrase like "significant fraction" rather than >> "plurality"? >> > > 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. > > 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. > > change >> >> " a plurality of resources >> requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure and >> customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located >> outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region." >> >> to >> >> " a significant fraction 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." >> > > If we don't like plurality for whatever reason, I'd suggest; > > "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." > > Where X% is something like 20%, 25%, or 30%. > > (representing a global network that spans 4 RIRs, but has no >> customers, I also advocate changing from "and customers" >> to "or customers", to relieve networks such as the one I work >> for from being unfairly excluded from obtaining ARIN resources. >> > > 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"? > > I will also note for the record that as port density increases, >> the number of devices we use is going down, not up. >> >> They cost a metric shit ton more, and suck up more power >> and need more cooling--but if you're measuring by "number >> of boxes" rather than "capability of boxes", I think the expectation >> that the number of boxes in a network will always be increasing, >> as someone else further down in the thread claimed, is prima >> facie false. >> > > 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. > > Matt >> >> (for the record, while I'm suggesting alternate language that >> I think might be more palatable, as currently proposed, >> I oppose this proposal) >> > > 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? > > Thanks > > -- > ==============================**================== > David Farmer Email: [email protected] > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ==============================**================== > ______________________________**_________________ > 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<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.
