[ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, take 2

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:51:59AM +0000, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> I don't like this part. And I don't see how ARIN as an organization
> can make this kind of decision before the next member meeting.

One of the items to come out of the meeting was that we need a
process for ARIN to make statements.  Taking IPv6 out of the argument,
the original need was by ICANN.

ICANN came to ARIN and said, "ARIN, ICANN would like to know how
ARIN thinks IPv6 space should be allocated from IANA to ARIN and
the other RIR's, please tell us your opinion."

A bunch of people scratched their heads and asked the basic question,
"how do we get the ARIN membership to agree on a recommendation to
ICANN?"  Well, the only process we had to get the members to agree
on anything was the policy proposal process.  So, a proposal was
generated, 2004-8, available at http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_8.html.

Many of us voiced an immediate concern.  This is not an ARIN policy.
It is not binding on ARIN.  It does not handle how ARIN deals with
its constituency.  It is ARIN, as a group, speaking to anther group.
An interesting question (in part due to the proposal being in the
old format) is should this recommendation go into the NRPM.  If it
does, and ICANN chooses a different policy due to input from the
other RIR's, will we have to go through the policy process to change
it?

In the end, many of us seem to agree that we need a process outside
the policy process to propose "ARIN Statements", "ARIN Open Letters",
"ARIN Recommendations", or whatever you might want to call them.
Also, due to the fact that deadlines for these comments are imposed
outside of ARIN (by ICANN, or in the IPv6 case the IETF comment
period) the process needs to be "quicker".  That may still require
a members meeting, but at the least there should be a way to get
it out in a single member's meeting.

To come back to this IPv6 statement.  This is a proposed statement
for that new, as yet non-existent process.  Others (including myself)
are working on drafting the process, but I wanted to get people
thinking about this issue in parallel so one did not need to hold
up the other.

> >   ]  - The proposal calls for a  a new "RIR" type function by fiat, 
> rather
> >   ]    than using the existing processes to create these sorts of
> >   ]    organizations.
> 
> Seems like a valid complaint.
> 
> >   ]  - The proposal calls for an RIR function to be provided at no fee
> >   ]    to the end user, and with no method of funding the RIR functions.
> >   ]    ARIN believes the IETF should not discuss fees in engineering
> >   ]    drafts.
> 
> Seems to be picking nits. IETF drafts can say anything about anything.
> It's the RFCs that don't discuss fees and I would hope that is sorted
> out by the normal RFC editing process.

ARIN takes a strong position of not allowing fee discussion in its
own policy.  I think it needs to take an equally strong position
on this topic.  If this statement isn't removed from the final draft
it makes it much easier for future drafts to say things like "RIR's
won't charge more than $200 for an IPv4 allocation."

> >   ]  - The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region
> >   ]    about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet.
> 
> This is confusing to me but then I haven't looked at the draft recently.
> Perhaps you could say what it is in the proposal that would create 
> confusion.

The proposal gives out guaranteed globally unique addresses.  ARIN
gives out globally unique addresses.  Only one group (is supposed
to be) routable.

> If you feel strongly about commenting on the draft, then please
> send your comments directly to the IETF mailing list. If you talked to
> people at the ARIN meeting and want to pass on their concerns then 
> please do so. But I think you are wasting your time with this idea
> of drafting a letter that ARIN in toto will send to the IETF.

I understand your opinion, and disagree.  However, the great thing
about the ARIN process is being consensus based, and I'm not sure
enough others have weighed in yet to really know how people are
leaning.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20041109/27ea81a0/attachment.sig>