[ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification

[Robert E. Seastrom]

"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at sprunk.org> writes:

> I'm not thrilled with the "not asking for justification" above, though I 
> understand that's a logical result of the interim policy (as would not 
> accepting _any_ justification).  I'd prefer that ARIN ask why, even if 
> you're going to rubber-stamp the approvals for lack of criteria.  That 
> may sound pointless for your purposes, but it'd help us figure out what 
> kind of direction you need from us in future policy.  Once you've gotten 
> a few real cases, you can present a "here's what we did and why, so 
> change the policy if you don't like it" at the next meeting.

Exactly so.  I'm in favor of having the policies serve the
public good rather than acting as an impediment to it (as could end up
being the case if we make up some numbers that sound plausible and
make a policy based upon them).

It would be highly constructive if ARIN staff could start gathering
and documenting justifications that organizations are offering.
Anonymized (of course) they would provide fine grist for the public
process mill.

> Still, thanks for the data, Leslie.  It's good to see what the impact 
> (or not) our policies have on ARIN's operations.

What Stephen said.  Thanks, ARIN staff.  :-)

                                        ---Rob