[ppml] ARIN participation (was: Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD rati o)

[Marshall Eubanks]

I thought that

- the 2002-3 experince was actually very positive, at least for me. I thought
that the system worked the way it was supposed to.

- by the time it came to approval, 2003-15 was so entangled with it that
(as it not uncommon with legislation) that it was better to approve
them both than open up two cans of worms to create a combined proposal.
My guess is that would have added a year to the process; it might be
waiting for approval yet.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks 


On Wed, 11 May 2005 17:04:28 -0700
 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > I don't know about that. My personal opinion (at the risk of becoming
> > public enemy #1, which is hardly an unusual position for me) is that it
> > was  a mistake to make 2003-15 a policy when we knew that Afrinic would
> > become a RIR within a year and when we knew that micro-assignment policy
> > (for the SAME size assignments) was also part of ARIN's own agenda.
> > 
> While I agreed with you to a certain extent, 2003-15 represented much more
> than the actual policy relief it provided.  It was important for a number
> of reasons that 2003-15 received consensus and approval.  It made a big
> difference to the AfriNIC contingent.  It showed them strong support from
> ARIN, and, it did provide a small amount of additional relief to them beyond
> what was available from 2002-3.  It is a good thing that AfriNIC is up and
> running only a year later.  There is some reason to believe, however,
> without
> 2003-15, this would not have happened as quickly.  That is one of the
> reasons
> I agreed to support 2003-15.  Also note, that 2003-15 was viewed as so
> important by the AfriNIC contingent that there was agreement to support
> 2002-3 only if I would support 2003-15.
> 
> In the end, I don't think we are considered enemies of AfriNIC.  It was a
> good debate, and, I think everyone won in the end as a result of a good
> airing of the ideas and needs.
> 
> Anyway, I'm starting to drift off the original topic here.  Bottom line,
> silence is viewed as consent, often by both sides of a debate.  If you don't
> want to support both parties positions, voice your position.
> 
> Owen
> 
> -- 
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.