[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I also question the statement regarding the nature of the consensus that was
> reached regarding the current 4.10. I will agree that there was consensus
> that the current 4.10 is "insufficient" and needs additional guidance
> provided to staff regarding what the community thinks is appropriate use of
> this reserved block.
>From what I saw, opinion coalesced around two major points of view:
A. 4.10 as written will carelessly obstruct useful consumption of the
addresses. Just give the addresses out honestly until they're gone.
B. 4.10 as written will carelessly consume the reserved addresses.
These are the last ones. We should very carefully and very stingily
parcel them out.
I think Marty's proposal does an excellent job of balancing these two
points of view and I'm wholeheartedly for it. The vast majority of us
seem to agree that 4.10 doesn't get the job done, there's no point
trying to figure out how to parcel out addresses unless we make sure
there are addresses to parcel out, and if we can't come to a
conclusion on how to parcel them out within a reasonable amount of
time then we shouldn't continue sitting on them.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
> I set an expiration on the proposal of 20 OCT 2011.
You missed a stitch here. Leave enough time following the October 2011
meeting for the proposal to go through last call and board adoption.
Maybe something like 1/1/2012 as the expiration date.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004