Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 9, 2012, at 10:52 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com> wrote:
>> If we close the policy forum in APNIC and only EC has a power to treat
>> a policy, I don't see major differences between APNIC and ITU as a
>> ordinary community member.
>
> i suspect that you don't understand the itu or itu-t structure. but
> that is not very relevant as you were just being sensationalist. the
> sad fact is that most rir policy wonks are jealous of the itu-t, and
> want to meet in smoke filled rooms, drink brandy, and make big
> decisions.
>
The following is my opinion and mine alone. It is not an official statement
of ARIN, the ARIN AC, or any other body or organization.
As a member of the ARIN AC, I assume that I'm one of the people you mean when you use the term "rir policy wonks". If not, then your chosen pejorative is not only misguided, it's also misleading and you should find something better to describe whatever you do mean.
I have met most, if not all, of the "policy wonks" from every RIR. While it is true that some of them smoke and some of them enjoy brandy (though whiskey, scotch, and vodka seem more prevalent in that particular crowd), every one of them I have met, including the ones I generally disagree with most often strives for openness and transparency as well as inclusiveness of the community in the policy processes.
Your accusation is as unfounded and baseless as is your use of pejorative terms to describe hard working volunteers doing their best to serve a diverse set of communities. I will note that until not all that many years ago, you were not only one of those "wonks", but you have the unusual distinction of having been one of those wonks at multiple RIRs and having even been the head wonk for APNIC for some time.
> ipv4 is gone. yes, some people can not get over that, but it makes
> little difference if they get it or they do not. ipv4 is gone. and
> we have agreed not to change the final /8 policy. did i say ipv4 is
> gone?
IPv4 is not gone. The APNIC IPv4 free pool is very nearly gone.
We have not agreed not to change the final /8 policy. We have agreed that there was not consensus for the last modification to that policy that was proposed. Failure to arrive at consensus for one change is not, to the best of my knowledge, consensus to never again propose a different change. In fact, I don't believe it is even consensus not to propose the same change again at a later date.
It seems to me that if we had utterly and completely agreed not to change the last /8 policy and the last /8 were truly all that was left of IPv4, your proposal would be moot.
> ipv6 is sufficiently plentiful that policies, as opposed to practices,
> are really not needed. though i am sure policy weenies such as owen
> delong and others in my .procmailrc need a career fine-tuning how many
> angles can dance on the head of a pin. it won't move packets one bit
> better.
Interesting... Now we've gone from pejoratives for groups of volunteers trying to serve the community to personal insults in violation of the mailing list AUP.
To the best of my knowledge, angles are incapable of dancing and have little or no relevance to internet address policy. For that matter, angels also have no relevance to internet address policy that I am aware of.
A career is a way one earns an income. I derive no income from my efforts in internet resource policy and you are well aware of this. Whether you agree with my perspective or not, it is my intent to serve the community and keep resources readily available to the broadest possible set of users on a fair and equitable basis as much as possible. While it doesn't directly affect the performance of routers, it certainly does improve the options of people using those routers in terms of the utility they can experience from those packets moving.
> and, as the policy suggests, just as in all other aspects of apnic
> operations, should an emergency arise, the ec can always act, or if time
> is not of the essence, they can form a wg or a sig. whatever.
Reserving the creation of a forum for community input to action of the EC assumes that the EC will not only recognize the need for such a forum when it arises, but also agree with the community that such a forum is the right mechanism for addressing that need. Such assumptions are inherently dangerous and dissolving such a forum should not be taken lightly.
Owen
P.S. Can someone who Randy doesn't consider an example of all that is wrong with the internet please forward this to him?
Thanks