[address-policy-wg] Re: The emacs, X windows and Linux approach to policy making

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 11:26 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
> It's tempting to consider tweaking our policy for the IPv4 dregs to  
> show our displeasure at the path ARIN has adopted. However I hope we  
> can rise above that.

We would not be tweaking the policy to show displeasure. Option 1 (which
"shows displeasure with ARIN") is actually the original proposal. Option
2 which doesn't, tweaks the policy. Sorry to be pedantic. 

> I'm also beginning to wonder if policy-making is being unconsciously  
> shaped by the Linux/emacs/X-windows approach to software design. If  
> that can be called "design". [The only thing wrong with these bits of  
> code is they don't have enough options or configuration variables to  
> tweak. :-)] I would like to see fewer options on what to do about  
> 2009-01. Ideally it should be reduced to a binary choice.

I'm happy with that.

> With that in mind and Nigel's comments that the proposal is dead and  
> starting to have a bad smell, I suggest we reduce the discussion of  
> 2009-01 to a simple choice of whether to withdraw it or not.

In my original terms we decide either to adopt option #1 (go with the
existing proposal) or option #4. I'm very happy with offering just these
choices.

> IMO, withdrawing this proposal makes the most sense. Continuing with  
> it would only be worthwhile if the same approach to recovered space  
> was being followed by the other RIRs. Since that's no longer possible,  
> I think we should just stop flogging this dead horse.

This is a fair point... and I'm happy to accept it if the community
decides this is the consensus position.

> If there's support for keeping 2009-01 alive, I'd like to suggest we  
> focus the discussion to a choice between two mutually exclusive  
> positions:
> 
> 1) recovered space goes back to IANA for it to redistribute somehow

This is 2009-01 in essence.

> 2) recovered space stays with the NCC for redistribution according to  
> RIPE policy

This is a new policy and outside scope for the present discussion.

Nigel