Re: I don't support the RIR joint proposal
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:59:32 +0800
- Organization: VLSM-TJT
Frode Greisen wrote:
>> <http://www.ripe.net/info/ncc/icann.mou.html>
>> "The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) will be a
>> consensus-based advisory body within the ICANN framework."
>>
>> * There is a possibility, that a "consensus-based" system
>> could redefine fixed norms (eg. PI from 3.14 to 5.0).
>
> I would argue that the scientific method that we know since the
> Renaissance is in fact a consensus based system. People propose
> something, others disagree and eventually it becomes public
> knowledge that PI is indeed 3.14159265....
>
> There have been examples that other systems (non consensus systems) have
> defined PI as 3 or 22/7 - not sure if anyone has tried 5 yet.
A consensus based system is less predictable, whereas a constitutional
based system is better. And yes, there is a consensus of PI *DEFINITION*;
i.e. the ratio between the perimeter and the diameter of a circle.
This definition makes a despotism PI as good as a monarchy PI
as good as a communism PI as good as a fundamentalism PI as good as
a democratic PI. The PI value can not easily changed, just because
people are starting to send "supporting emails" for PI changes.
Let's just assume that this following was quoted from another galaxy,
far, far, away:
"A Note from the Galaxy Steering Group:
By approving this document as a Best Current Practice, the Galaxy
Steering Group asserts its belief that this policy described
herein is an accurate representation of the current practice of
the Galaxy's address registries with respect to address assignment.
This does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of this policy
by the Galaxy Steering Group. The Galaxy Steering Group will
reevaluate its approval of this document on stardate 1997.12 taking
into consideration the results of the discussions that will be take
place in the Consensus Working Group between now and then."
A constitutional system is more predictable. It means, the Galaxy
Steering Group really mean it when it says: "reevaluate". However,
in a "consensus based" system, it is less predictable. They will
use excuses like "We are just volunteers" even if their receive
fat pay checks from their vested employer.
>> * I can not see how this ASO could effectively control the RIRs,
>> as well as redefining a RIR role, creating/disbanding a RIR,
>> etc.
>
> Now, the critical point is consensus between who ?
The ones who have to PAY for this all! The current RIRs do not
have records of working efficiently. This way is OK if it is
applied to advanced countries. However, it is a no-no, for
RIRs who shamelessly charging developing countries for their
lousy service!
regards,
--
-Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT -- http://www.vlsm.org/rms46/ --
-Read the directions,even if you don't follow them!Everybody's Free
