[ppml] Policy without consensus?

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Daniel Golding
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 4:15 PM
> To: Lea Roberts; Owen DeLong
> Cc: PPML
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status
> 
> 
> Well, the last PP 2005-1 was completely unworkable. I 
> supported it because
> it was better than nothing - but only barely. (Many) People 
> who voted for it
> were holding their noses and voting yes in the hope of 
> improving it later. I
> like consensus solutions, but it just didn't work.
> 
> I don't think consensus on this issue will be possible. There 
> are a couple camps here....

That puts us in a difficult position.  The process says we can
only ratify a policy is there is evidence of consensus.  The
only exception would be in case of an emergency, and I think
we're a couple of years from an emergency.
  http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html


> A consensus PP was attempted. It failed. Now, we should 
> attempt to craft the
> best possible PP for the greatest number of folks, and try to see it
> through. The AC and Board can move forward without consensus 
> if the need is
> there. I think that should be done rarely, but this may be 
> one of those cases.

I'd have a hard time presenting this as an emergency.

Lee

> 
> - Dan 
> 
> 
> On 1/23/06 4:01 PM, "Lea Roberts" <lea.roberts at stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
> > well, seems like maybe we should talk it out here (again... 
> :-) for a
> > while.  this sounds more like a "PI for everyone" policy.  
> while I'm sure
> > there's a large number of people who would like that, I 
> still think it's
> > unlikely it can reach consensus...
> > 
> > As I said at the meeting in L.A., I still think it is 
> possible to reach
> > consensus for PI assignments for large organizations and I 
> thought that's
> > where we were still headed after the last meeting., i.e. 
> trying to find
> > criteria that the latest round of objectors could live with.
> > 
> > let the discussion begin!    /Lea
> > 
> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 
> >> Kevin,
> >> Why don't you, Lea, and I take this off line and decide
> >> what to present back to the group.  I apologize for not having
> >> followed up in a more timely manner after the last meeting.
> >> 
> >> Owen
> >> 
> >> On Jan 23, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Kevin Loch wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> >>>> Hello;
> >>>> 
> >>>> When last I saw it, 2005-1 was to be reformatted to 
> something more
> >>>> like
> >>>> its original version.
> >>> 
> >>> These were my suggestions using feedback from the last meeting:
> >>> 
> >>> To qualify for a minimum end site assignment of /44 you 
> must either:
> >>> 
> >>>    - have an allocation or assignment directly from ARIN 
> (and not a
> >>>      legacy allocation or assignment)
> >>> 
> >>>    OR
> >>> 
> >>>    - meet the qualifications for an IPv4 assignment from 
> ARIN without
> >>>      actually requesting one.
> >>> 
> >>>    OR
> >>> 
> >>>    - be currently connected to two or more IPv6 providers with at
> >>> least
> >>>    one /48 assigned to you by an upstream visible in whois/rwhois.
> >>> 
> >>> Assignment prefixes shorter than the minimum would be based
> >>> on some metric and definition of "sites".
> >>> 
> >>> One practical way to look at sites is by number of connections to
> >>> separate upstream provider POPs.
> >>> 
> >>> +--------------------------+
> >>> | Connections | Assignment |
> >>> +-------------+------------+
> >>> |         <12 |     /44    |
> >>> |       <=192 |     /40    |
> >>> |      <=3072 |     /36    |
> >>> |       >3072 |     /32    |
> >>> +-------------+------------+
> >>> (C=0.75 * 2^(48-A))
> >>> 
> >>> Or if /56 becomes the new default PA assignment shift the 
> assignment
> >>> sizes right 4 bits.
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Can someone tell me what the status of 2005-1 is currently ?
> >>> 
> >>> As far as I know it hasn't changed since the last 
> meeting.  Obviously
> >>> it should be updated one way or another.  I would gladly 
> write up a
> >>> formal revision or new proposal if requested.
> >>> 
> >>> - Kevin
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PPML mailing list
> >>> PPML at arin.net
> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML mailing list
> >> PPML at arin.net
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>