[ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Informationfrom NRPM

Thu Feb 15 23:54:54 EST 2007

I think that the root problem is that the RIR and ASO have policy as  
their
only tool.

What I believe is needed is an additional tool.  If we add a  
"recommendation"
tool, then, we have the NRPM for Policy, and the "recommendation  
repository"
for recommendations.

Policy should not dictate how an ISP/LIR operates it's business.   
However,
Best common practices and other recommendations could be collected
in such a "recommendations repository" as a community resource without
carrying the force or appearance of policy, thus removing the confusion.

So, perhaps what is needed is a (rather large) policy proposal that
does the following:

1.	Create the "recommendations repository" (please, come up with
	a better name for it).

2.	Remove all such recommendations from the NRPM.

3.	Add a section to the NRPM stating that non-binding recommendations
	are retained in the repository and that the NRPM is strictly for
	binding policies regarding resource allocations.

4.	Define a procedure for the updating of the "recommendations  
repository",
	probably much like the IRPEP, or, extend the IRPEP to allow it to
	encompass the creation/modification of such recommendations.

5.	Whatever other steps I missed in this process.

Owen

On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

>
> This discussion seems to play along the same lines as the policy
> proposal to remove the multiple /48 requirement. Both of these skirt
> around the extent of an RIR's control.
>
> One thought is "These statements should be removed." This is because
> ARIN should not be mandating what an ISP/LIR can allocate to it's  
> users.
> Even if it wanted to, it has little ability to enforce such a  
> statement,
> so why try and take this stance. Once an ISP/LIR obtains an  
> allocation,
> they can allocate in whatever way they feel is necessary. ARIN's main
> recourse to enforce responsible use is the initial and subsequent
> allocation requirements. Trying to make these kinds of demands gives
> ARIN an intrusive image it can't control.
>
> The other thought is "These statements should remain." This is because
> ARIN needs some mechanism to provide direction, in response to
> organizations seeking guidance, on how to allocate responsibly, and  
> what
> is expected of them.
>
> It is not an issue that the information is in there, but where in the
> NRPM it is placed. By having the statement in section 6.5.4 it leans
> towards the first approach, trying to define how an ISP/LIR should
> service it's customers.
>
> Policies should not be written to dictate how an ISP/LIR should  
> conduct
> it's business, but rather how the Internet community should use
> resources in a responsible manner. I agree that the proposed  
> wording in
> 6.5.4.1 should be removed. I agree that the proposed wording in  
> section
> 6.5.4.2 should be removed. The problem is, in the absence of a clear
> initial and subsequent allocation requirement, ARIN would be left with
> nothing to prevent irresponsible practices.
>
> This is a very subtle difference but seems to be where many proposals
> run into issues. As a result, these statements should remain as
> guidelines, until the community is comfortable with the development of
> the surrounding IPv6 policies.
>
> My two cents,
> Dan
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On  
> Behalf Of
> cja at daydream.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:34 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational
> Informationfrom NRPM
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to have some discussion here about this.   For the time
> being I have withdrawn this proposal.  The reason is that it seems  
> that
> the information that it strikes is information that the ARIN staff  
> uses
> to help guide LIRs to assign reasonable blocks to their customers.   
> When
> an LIR assigns /40s to each of its customers just because, ARIN can
> point to the guidelines as to what more reasonable assignments  
> are.  It
> is pretty much a given that this information needs to exist somewhere
> but it's not quite policy.  I'd like your thoughts about this.
>
> One idea is to have a document that's like the NRPM but contains
> operational guidelines for LIRs.  Maybe like an NPOG (Number Policy
> Operational Guidelines).
>
> Thanks!
> ----Cathy
>
>
> On 2/10/07, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
> 	ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with
> the ARIN
> 	Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is
> being
> 	posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being
> placed on
> 	ARIN's website.
> 	
> 	The AC will review this proposal and may decide to:
> 	
> 	1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is
> presented;
> 	
> 	2. Work with the author to:
> 	      a) clarify the language or intent of the proposal;
> 	      b) divide the proposal into two (2) or more proposals; or
> 	      c) combine the proposal with other proposals; or,
> 	
> 	3. Not accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal.
> 	
> 	The AC will review this proposal at their next meeting. If the
> AC
> 	accepts the proposal, then it will be posted as a formal policy
> proposal
> 	to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting. If
> the AC
> 	does not accept the proposal, then the AC will explain that
> decision;
> 	and at that time the author may elect to use the petition
> process to
> 	advance their proposal. If the author elects not to petition or
> the
> 	petition fails, then the proposal will be closed.
> 	
> 	The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be
> found at:
> 	http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html
> 	
> 	Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> 	http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html
> <http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html>
> 	
> 	Regards,
> 	
> 	Member Services
> 	American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 	
> 	
> 	## * ##
> 	
> 	
> 	Policy Proposal Name: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Information
> from NRPM
> 	
> 	Authors:
> 	Lea Roberts
> 	Cathy Aronson
> 	
> 	Proposal Version: Version 0
> 	
> 	Submission Date: 8 February 2007
> 	
> 	Proposal type: Modify
> 	
> 	Policy term: Permanent
> 	
> 	Policy statement:
> 	
> 	The following parts of Section 6.5.4.1 should be removed from
> the
> 	Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).
> 	
> 	NRPM Section 6.5.4.1 states:
> 	
> 	The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only
> 	guidelines):
> 	
> 	* /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed
> 	
> 	* /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets
> 	over the next 5 years.
> 	
> 	* /48 for larger sites
> 	
> 	Rationale:
> 	
> 	Discussions in recent public policy meetings, as well as in
> Advisory
> 	Council meetings, have led to the consensus that operational
> 	information, such as these IPv6 guidelines, should be removed
> from the
> 	NRPM. This section is a clear example of text not directly
> related to
> 	ARIN policy and so it is proposed that it should be removed.
> 	
> 	Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	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