[ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation

[Suzanne Woolf]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 08:49:49PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Some comments.

Thank you.

> First, I must confess a bit of surprise at the reaction during the
> meeting and here on this topic. This draft has been around for a long
> time (a year in the making?) and I presented much of the same content
> in Vancouver; there was no such reaction then.

I suspect this is due to a discontinuity between "people who
participate in the IETF" and "people who participate in ARIN policy
activities". When some of us talk about the lack of operator
participation in IETF activities, this is the kind of symptom we mean.

I respectfully suggest that most of the people who heard you speak on
this in Vancouver had not heard of it before and didn't have an
immediate response. They're responding now because it's had a chance
to percolate into more prominence.

> Personally, I have to wonder if having ARIN take a formal position is
> the way to go here. First, it will take some time to reach such a
> consensus, if indeed, there would be consensus. The unique-local-addr
> document is undergoing IESG review now; any comments need to come in
> soon, not a month or two from now.  

I would like to see RIR and IETF process mesh better than they do
now. But with all due respect to both organizations, having ARIN or
its members miss an IESG deadline does *not* mean that a proposal they
find harmful can or will be forced on them.

> Second, this would be a first (I
> can't recall ARIN ever having done so), so you'd be charting new
> ground. Does the issue here warrant it?  

This is less of an issue than it might appear. ARIN takes formal
positions on various issues all the time, mostly through the formal
policy process. It's becoming clear that ARIN needs one or more
additional ways to express consensus on issues that don't strictly
lend themselves to the policy process. 

The IPv6 IANA/RIR Allocation Policy document was the first case where
ARIN is really being asked for input to another body's policy process
(NRO) rather than creating policy to remain within the scope of
ARIN. However, it's not going to be the last, and there's been
discussion (including in yesterday's Public Policy meeting session) of
a "recommendation" process to use in providing input to bodies such as
NRO, IETF, and so on. 

Such a process would be lightweight and quick by comparison to the
policy process, because the time constraints you're talking about are
typical and because in some ways due diligence is less-- a
recommendation is still a serious undertaking, but it's not binding on
anyone the way ARIN policy is binding on ARIN staff and members. NRO
and other bodies would be expected to have additional process for
ratifying such a recommendation before it was binding on anyone.

> Finally, what will get the
> IETF's attention more than anything is clearly articulating what the
> issues are, and how they can be fixed, if indeed they can. Saying "bad
> idea" without saying why isn't particular constructive.

An important point which I believe is being pursued elsewere in this
thread.


Suzanne Woolf
ARIN AC