[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> - I cant support this until the things that are to be taken out have
> a place to go like the creation of NPOG (Number Policy
> Operational Guidelines).

While I understand that argument, I do not feel that we should delay the 
proposal on that basis.  The simple matter is that many of the sections to 
be removed are not policy and do not belong in the NRPM; whether they belong 
in a NPOG (which could be created without IRPEP action) doesn't change that 
fact.

> -Change I.  Make this a separate proposal due to it removing a
> /48 as a specification.  In fact take it out of this proposal and
> let the other proposal(Definition of known ISP and changes to
> IPv6 initial allocation criteria) that was submitted address this
> issue.

] 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."

I think this change is natural fallout from 2005-8 and does not constitute 
making "new" policy.  However, if this change were to reduce support for the 
proposal as a whole, I would agree that it needs to be separated out.

Question: If that were the case, would the AC allow the authors to submit a 
new proposal for the separated change even though the deadline has passed, 
or would it have to wait for the next policy cycle?  If the latter, perhaps 
a better action would be for people to say "I support this proposal, except 
for Change X" and have the AC make edits later as consensus warrants?

> -Change H.  I don't support removing this.  I suggest relocating it
> to 6.5.1.2 because the wording is more clarifying in an example
> manner than what is currently written in 6.5.1.2 already.

] Change H:
]
]    Remove section 6.4.4.

I do not find 6.5.1.2, as it stands, any less enlightening than 6.4.4; if 
anything, I prefer the language of the former since it's more general. 
Also, 6.4 describes "principles" while 6.5 gives the actual policy, so 6.4 
has no effect in practice and thus doesn't belong in the NRPM.  Moving text 
from 6.4 to 6.5 would be a policy change and inappropriate for a 
"housekeeping" proposal.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking