[ppml] My idea was a non-starter

[william at elan.net]

I generally support what Owen wrote about the order and making substantial 
effort to pass micro-assignments and allocations with minimum number of 
extra policies for each case and as soon as possible. I would like few 
minor adjustments to question and how they are asked:

Question 1:
		Is there support if 2002-3 were modified and term
		"end-user" replaced with term "organization" and words
		"assigned by ARIN" replaced with "assigned or allocated by 
		ARIN" and similarly everhwere where it says "assignments" 
		replaced with "assingments and allocations".
 
Question 2 (asked if question 1 does not majority support or if its clear 
people want assignmetns and allocations in separate policies):
		Is there support for 2002-3 as is

Question3 (asked no matter what support Question 2 had):
		Is there support for 2003-15 if it was modified and 
		references to it being only for African portion of ARIN
		are removed

Question 4 (asked if there is no clear support on Question 3)
		Is there support for 2003-15 if it was modified and
		references to it being only for African portion of ARIN 
		removed and if it included only option "b" (multi-homing
		requirement with existing use of two /24s) under allocation
		criteria

Question 5 (asked no matter what support is there for Question 4)
		Is there support for 2003-15 as is only for African Region


On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 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
> >