[ppml] ARIN participation (was: Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD rati o)
tme at multicasttech.com
Wed May 11 21:03:58 EDT 2005
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.
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,
> 2003-15, this would not have happened as quickly. That is one of the
> 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.
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
More information about the ARIN-PPML