[ppml] My idea was a non-starter

[Owen DeLong]

Thank you, Alec,

	As a result, I would like to advocate that we do the following:

	1.	I think it would be helpful to call the questions in the
		following order at the meeting:

		2002-3 can we get consensus if it includes allocation and
			assignment.

		if not:

		2002-3 can we get consensus if it is assignment only.


		if not:
		2003-15 can we get consensus if it includes all of ARIN
	

		if not:
		2003-15 can we get consensus as is.

	2.	If we can ask the questions in that order, then, I
		will support each and every one of those until one
		passes.  I think this is fair because it allows the
		community to decide progressively from the most open
		policy to the most restrictive.  It still provides a
		possibility for AfriNIC to get what they need even if
		ARIN cannot achieve consensus around rational ARIN-wide
		policy.

I hope that the representatives from AfriNIC and everyone who wants
micro-allocations and assignments in North America will join me in
supporting this approach.  I think it provides our best chance of
getting good policy implemented for everyone, while, simultaneously
preserving the ability to do as much good as we can if we cannot
get relief for everyone.  Further, I think this prevents most of
the potential delay impacts of previously discussed amendment
strategies.

To clarify... If the questions are called in the above order and
we cannot get consensus on making an ARIN-wide /22 allocation policy,
I will support 2003-15 as is because I do believe that the relief is
needed in Africa and I do believe that AfriNIC wants this.  However,
absent calling the other questions first, I think we do a great injustice
to the ARIN membership that has been trying to achieve this througout
ARIN for more than a year.  If we do not pass an ARIN wide /22 allocation
policy, then, we are, as a body, choosing to disenfranchise a significant
portion of the constituency.

I did not present this earlier because I promised Alec that I would wait
for a definitive answer from the AC on what was possible.  I didn't want
to create unnecessary confusion.  I want to thank Alec for his substantial
efforts on this issue and for his assistance in getting this clarification
so rapidly.  I hope that in light of this new data we can achieve consensus
around a complete /22 allocation and assignment policy for all of ARIN
at the upcoming meeting.

Thanks,

Owen

--On Thursday, October 2, 2003 7:38 AM -0600 "Alec H. Peterson" 
<ahp at hilander.com> wrote:

> As it happens the information Owen had about how the policy process works
> (which came from me) was not entirely correct.  We can indeed change the
> content of 2002-3 and/or 2003-15 without another policy cycle provided
> there is general consensus for said changes.  I'm not exactly sure why I
> thought anything else was the case, it probably has to do with the fact
> that we have never had anything close to consensus on anything related to
> ARIN's minimum allocation size, so another policy cycle has always been
> necessary.  At any rate, I apologize for misleading people about that.
>
> So, as far as how to move forward, at this point the AC is considered the
> 'author' for 2002-3 (the original authors did not want to continue work
> on it).  So the people on the AC who have been working on 2002-3 have
> been following the discussion and will decide on an appropriate plan of
> attack. 2003-15 is not an AC proposal at this point, so any changes made
> to it prior to the AC meeting will probably need to be initiated by said
> author[s].
>
> Note that consensus on these issues is far from guaranteed, as we've
> already been through several policy cycles without much luck, but
> hopefully the compromise the AC has tried to strike with 2002-3 will
> allow things to finally move forward.
>
> Alec
> Chair, ARIN AC
>