[ppml] My idea was a non-starter

[Owen DeLong]

On this, I completely agree.  Unfortunately, the codified standard that
the AC MUST adopt WRT changing the policies at the meeting is that
there must be clear consensus for the change or it requires another
policy cycle.

I am hoping that we can achieve clear consensus at the meeting, although,
I think that will be difficult.

Owen


--On Thursday, October 2, 2003 11:23 AM -0700 william at elan.net wrote:

> And do note that I used term "majority support" and not "conscensus".
> Based on previous meeting proceedings and general opposition to both
> micro-assignents by some larger ISPs (which account for majority of ISP
> representatives on the meeting) I do not believe there is a clear
> consensus on any of these issues, but majority support of those
> expressing opinion on this topic maybe available.
>
> I should also like to point out that both BoT and AC promised to make
> their decisions not only based on the opinions expressed at the meeting
> but also based on the support they see on this very mailing list. I would
> like to think they have seen the kind of support 2003-15 had and that
> there is no longer any serious opposition on technical merits to 2002-3
> or for either micro-assignments or allocations in general. I hope that
> this will be taken into account by the BoT and AC on their official
> decisions no matter what exact "show of hands" from the participants at
> the live meeting is.
>
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
>
>> 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
>