[ppml] Policy Proposal: Definition of known ISP and changes toIPv6 initial allocation criteria

[Azinger, Marla]

I dont want make people read my responses twice.  And I sent out my reviews on each proposal and they appear to be taking a "processing" time.  So when they show up you will see my suggestions for what should be combined and what needs to be taken out of yours and left in another similiar one.

Cheers!
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Leo Bicknell
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:20 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Definition of known ISP and changes
toIPv6 initial allocation criteria


In a message written on Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:51:27PM -0400, Member Services wrote:
> Replace 6.5.1.1 (d) with the following text:
> 
>      d.  be an existing ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for
>          making assignments to at least 200 separate organizations
>          within five years.

In my IPv6 Policy Housekeeping proposal, recently sent to PPML I
proposed similar language, which was discovered today during AC review
of the various proposals.  Here's the language from the other proposal:

] Change I:
] 
]    In section 6.5.1.1.d, replace the existing statement with the new
]    statement:
] 
]        "be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for
]         making at least 200 end-site assignments to other organizations
]         within 5 years."

Were both proposals to pass, are these substantially similar enough
that the AC could use either one to serve the purpose?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org