Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Aug 31, 2019, at 09:23 , Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us> wrote:
>
> On 8/27/19 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us <mailto:dougb () dougbarton us>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Responding to no one in particular, and not representing views of any current or former employer ...
> > >
> > > I find all of this hullabaloo to be ... fascinating. A little background to frame my comments below. I was GM of 
> > > the IANA in the early 2000's, I held a tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it up because life changed, and 
> > > I no longer had time; but I still have all my toys, err, I mean, gear); and I have known two of the ARDC board 
> > > members and one of the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ for over fifteen years. I consider them all 
> > > friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known for over 20 years, and consider a close and 
> > > very dear friend.
> > >
> > > There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone who genuinely cared about this space could 
> > > have used any number of mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. I cannot help but 
> > > think that some of this current sound and fury is an excuse to express righteous indignation for its own sake. The 
> > > folks involved with ARDC have been caring for the space for a long time. From my perspective, seeing the writing on 
> > > the wall regarding the upcoming friction around IPv4 space as an asset with monetary value increasing 
> > > exponentially, they took quite reasonable steps to create a legal framework to ensure that their ability to 
> > > continue managing the space would be protected. Some of you may remember that other groups, like the IETF, were 
> > > taking similar steps before during and after that same time frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, how 
> > > it was done, etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least part of your anger isn't due to the fact 
> > > that all of these things have happened over the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?
> > Certainly part of my anger is that I did not know some of them were happening.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > However, most of my anger is around the fact that:
> > 1.It never in a million years would have occurred to me that these people who I also consider friends and also trust 
> > explicitly
> > would take this particular action without significant prior (and much wider) consultation with the amateur radio 
> > community.
> > 2.I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically to avoid any risk of successful backlash 
> > by the time
> > the community became aware of this particular intended action.
>
> I have actually been in this exact same position, of knowing that a thing is the right thing to do, but also knowing 
> that doing it would create a poop-storm. I don't know if your analysis is right or not, but if I had been in their 
> shoes I probably would have done the same thing.

Well, I suppose that’s a matter of perspective and personal conviction.

For me, It’s hard to defend a belief that an action is correct if I’m afraid that the community I’m a steward for will 
offer up significant opposition to the point that I want to take the action in secret behind the back of the community.

I’m not intending any insult, or judgment on your value system, but from my perspective, avoiding the community 
discussion of a plan and acting on it behind their backs is an act of cowardice, not an act of conviction.

> > If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing the severe corporate governance problems 
> > with ARDC until
> > they took this particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.
>
> No, I am not attempting to shame anyone (although I admit my message was a bit testy). My point is simply that all of 
> this after-the-fact griping, in the absence of any proven harm, is probably not as much about the thing as it is 
> about self-culpability in what lead up to the thing. But as humans it's hard to direct that anger towards ourselves, 
> so it gets directed outwardly. So, no shame, as it's a very human reaction. But a little more self-awareness would 
> not be out of place.

There is proven harm. There were active users of the address space sold that were (at the very least) forced to 
renumber.

> > > So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have complained about how ARDC has not done a 
> > > good job of $X function that stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in the bank will 
> > > help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, 
> > > and what percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is 
> > > readily available essentially "for free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?
> > All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them 
>
> So shouldn't actually looking at the space to determine if any real harm was done be the next step?

There were definitely allocations/assignments in the space sold.

I think that the next step should be finding a way to alter the ARDC governance and board to ensure that such an action 
is not possible in the future without significant community review prior to the action being taken.

ARDC must be reorganized to empower the Amateur Community.

Owen