[ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group.

Thus spake"Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org>
> In a message written on Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 09:39:22AM -0500, Stephen 
> Sprunk wrote:
>> What is stopping someone from putting "Upon adoption by all
>> other RIRs" in the "Timetable for implementation" slot of the
>> policy template?  We could pass a proposal but it wouldn't go
>> into the NRPM or be implemented by staff until that occurred.
>> Given how nearly all proposals give a timetable of
>> "immediately", such a trick seems like the only purpose for
>> having that field...
>
> Truthfully, I'm not entirely clear.  If you look at
> http://www.nro.net/documents/nro4.html the problem seems to
> be in step 4:
>
> ] 4. This common text will be ratified by each RIR, by methods of
> ] its own choosing.
>
> I'm not sure if it's ARIN's interpretation, or the NRO's interpretation
> of ARIN's policies, but "ratified" seems to mean a passed policy
> proposal added to the NRPM.  That's not to say it has to be
> implemented, e.g. ARIN actively doing what it is the policy states,
> but it needs to be in the ARIN NRPM somewhere.

ARIN's world is a bit different due to having a single monolithic manual as 
opposed to publishing each individual policy that has been passed; this is 
IMHO superior as a reference work for applicants and staff, but it puts us 
at odds with how the other RIRs work when it comes to inter-RIR matters. 
Still, I don't think this should be an obstacle for the NRO's purposes.  The 
text shouldn't need to be identical (heck, what are we supposed to do if 
LACNIC passes their policies in Spanish?) as long as the effect and intent 
is the same.

My interpretation is that ARIN could pass a policy proposal, which would 
satisfy the NRO's needs, but not implement it or add it to the NRPM until 
the other RIRs passed it as well.  We might end up deciding not to add it 
into the NRPM at all, though that's more a matter for the BoT to discuss. 
IIRC, there is nothing in the Charter that requires a NRPM in the first 
place -- just that the BoT vote on policy proposals.

> RIR's should have input, and the method of making that policy
> should be bottom up; I don't want to change any of that.  I do feel
> strongly there should be a way for RIR's to send off delegates
> or statements or something though to the central policy making
> group and have this end up as a central, global policy in a much
> more straight forward method though.

Sending delegates means some method of selecting delegates and hoping 
they'll do something the community would have formed consensus around 
anyways.  I don't like that model.

I'm growing to like the proposal for a inter-RIR WG.  Such a group would 
work together to draft a single coherent proposal, present it to all the RIR 
communities simultaneously, collect feedback, and reconcile the changes 
needed to gain consensus (if possible) within one or two policy cycles. 
This would at least be superior to the current process of authors chasing 
whatever RIR has its meeting next, making changes, then getting shot down in 
the next one -- lather, rinse, repeat.

The fundamental problem, of course, is what if it's simply not possible to 
get the various RIRs to agree on anything due to divergent views on a 
particular topic?  It's entirely possible we'll still be bickering about v4 
allocations to RIRs after the last one is handed out...

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking