[ppml] What do we do with 2002-6?

[Sweeting, John]

Bill W.,

Last call on the mailing list is there to give people that were unable to
attend the meeting to let their opinions be heard...that being said there
was a significant amount of traffic reference this policy with much of it
pertaining to what the public felt were loopholes that could lead to abuse.
Bill D.'s wordsmithing,along with Richard J's assurances that legacy address
space is normally not reissued and other returned space is kept out of
circulation for at least a year, seems to address all the concerns and
recommendations that were received. So I guess my question is does the
rewording of the policy make that much difference in regards to the other
RIR's? My personal feelings are that trying to have common policies is a
good thing, reasoning tells me that there will have to be some differences
to account for the difference point of views held by the potential users of
each RIR. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody at pch.net]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:14 PM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] What do we do with 2002-6?


    > I assume that you choose to leave the wording as is?

Yes.

    > It seems to me that crafting any policy in the ARIN region solely
    > to be consistent with the other RIRs is not precisely the objective.

Had the policy been crafted in the ARIN region, it could not have been, by
definition, consistent with that of the other RIRs.

The objective (of the management of all three RIRs, on whose behalf I
brought the motion, of myself because it seems sensible, and I presume of
the rest of the ARIN board) is to make policy uniform wherever possible.

Taking an existing policy and changing it just makes the discrepancy
worse, not better.

    > when objections to the wording of this policy suggest shortcomings to
the
    > implementation or support of it, or subversive use of the policy
beyond its
    > design are worthy of discussion.

Quite possibly, but if so, the ARIN policy list certainly isn't the place
for it.  We just wrapped up the APNIC meeting today, and I didn't hear
anyone suggesting the policy needed rewording.  If the policy needed to be
reworded, this was where someone should have mentioned it, since this is
where it can be changed.

    > I welcome your suggestions on how to improve this process at all
    > stages, in the meeting and on the list, in private or in public.

I suggest that gratuitous changes by a small and opinionated group, to
things which have already been discussed and ratified in the light of day
by the full members' meeting is a bad process, and wastes the time of
everyone involved, as well as producing policy which fails to represent
the consensus of the group.

			-Bill