[ppml] Policy without consensus?

[Ray Plzak]

Just to be clear, even in an emergency, the ARIN Board of Trustees can not
make policy absent the community. The emergency provision allows the board
to shorten the policy period but does not allow it to make policy. Any
policy adopted through the emergency provision has a mandatory review that
must be conducted at the next public policy meeting.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Howard, W. Lee
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 4:51 PM
> To: Daniel Golding; Lea Roberts; Owen DeLong
> Cc: PPML
> Subject: [ppml] Policy without consensus?
> 
> > -----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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml