[governance] What is RPKI and why should you care about it?

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Also any running code that is, or becomes against the norm, will be changed, especially when the law requires.

Law is not the issue, I would thought, but policy.  In policy overcoming running code is much difficult because there has to be a good reason to change running code.  So it is a good idea for policy people who understand the technology to participate in the early days of requirements creation and standards building to make sure that it is accessible to policy oriented configuration.

Often policy is an evolving thing and when the technology is first conceived, the exact policies that people will want cannot be known as the potential of the system is not fully understandable - i.e. all code has emerging properties and capabilities.  But the sorts of thing that must be tunable and configurable so that policy can have an effect on the running code can lergely be known or postulated.

I disagree with the notion that running code is law.  It just sets the filed of possibilities and constraints within which policy can navigate - with greater energy being required to move policy  beyond those constraints.  And true once a system is old and brittle with age (bgp routing or dns e.g.) it becomes hard to make it malleable.

The relationship between code and policy in neither straightforward nor one way, but people who understand both code and policy need to be involved from the beginning in making sure that the code can meet the future possible needs of policy.

I also think it is fine for people to participate in their policy groups and use the expertise of the folks who live in both worlds, like yourselves to bridge the languages between the policy place like IGC and the technology places like IETF and the RIR.  while I think it is good for some of the technical folks to stray into policy spaces and policy folk to stray into technology spaces, i do think each space needs to be focused with intermediaries in both and the periodic IGF type encounters.  I do not think that all of the IGC should start coming to IETF meetings or that all of the IETF participants should join the IGC mailing list.

a.

On 13 Sep 2010, at 09:25, McTim wrote:

> Milton,
> 
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> My concern with RPKI is not that "law" is behind
> "technology," it is that policy decisions with law-like implications
> could be made without our even noticing it, through certain kinds of
> technical choices being made now.
>> 
> 
> I am 'shocked, shocked!'  to find that "running code wins"...
> 
> While I applaud your attempt at capacity building around this issue, I
> would hope that you focus on letting folk know how they can
> participate (and on encouraging them to do so) in the IETF and RIR
> processes that you will be talking about.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t