[arin-ppml] Possible amendment to proposal 116 (small experts panel)

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:02 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> The panel of experts would need to make use of processes which are
>> comparably open, transparent, and bottom-up in nature while developing
>> its recommended list of acceptable uses for these transition allocations,
>> if we want the the resulting changes are set to be compatible with the
>> current Policy Development Process.
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> You make excellent points. Let me throw a straw man out there and see
> if we can beat it up:
> 
> Experts panel to recommend acceptable uses for the reserved 4.10 space
> Uses not explicitly acceptable are rejected
> Recommendations by panel active only upon ratification by the BoT
> 
> 3 individuals on the panel (keep it small and nimble):
> 1 from ARIN staff
> 1 AC member selected by the AC
> 1 from academia selected by the board (specifically not affiliated
> with an IR or any ARIN members)
> 
Panel member 3 will be distinctly difficult to find. It is hard to find someone
in academia not affiliated with an ARIN member as most academic
institutions are ARIN members.

Also, I question a panel which specifically includes a representative
from academia while eschewing the idea of any representatives from
industry.

> Use plans (including number of addresses justified by the plan)
> crafted by members of the general public. Fill out and post a standard
> form to PPML.
> 1 week discussion and debate. If the author changes the proposal based
> on the feedback, the clock starts over at 1 week.
> Panel discusses privately following public discussion (conference call
> and email). Votes when ready but no later than 1 week following public
> discussion.
> 
I think getting the panel to meet more often than monthly is asking a
lot of these volunteers.

> Unanimous vote needed to recommend a new acceptable use.
> Majority vote needed to withdraw a previously accepted use.
> (we want to be very cautious with these addresses, so intentionally
> make it hard to get new uses approved but relatively easy to remove
> obsoleted or abused ones.)
> 
> BoT must ratify new acceptable uses. Will reject any recommended use
> that fails to fit within the broad definitions selected by the
> community in policy 4.10.
> 
One would hope that the panel would reject these prior to them reaching
the board, but, I agree the board should be a safety valve here.

> No single-entity tailored uses. Panel should reject and BoT should
> refuse to ratify uses that are obviously tailored to fit only one
> possible organization.
> 
> ARIN staff authorized to allocate addresses from 4.10 when presented
> with a request containing a use plan that matches one of the ratified
> acceptable uses.
> 
Should the request have to identify the acceptable use in their submitted
plan?

> Withdrawal only applies to address requests not already filled at the
> time the withdrawal proposal was made to PPML. (good faith)
> 
I would argue that withdrawl should apply to requests not yet acknowledged
by the ARIN ticketing system at the time the withdrawl proposal is ratified
by the panel. Otherwise you have unfair issues of ex post facto.

> Vote of no confidence - petition of 10 people on the PPML compels the
> AC to hold a confidence vote. If the majority of the AC votes no
> confidence, the panel is disbanded and must reformed from the same
> sources with different individuals. Vote confidence for the entire
> panel, not specific individuals.
> 
This seems particularly vulnerable to a DOS attack.

> Panel's recommendations apply only to the /10 set aside by section
> 4.10. Panel disbands when the last of the /10 set aside by section
> 4.10 is allocated.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
In line.

Owen