[ppml] policies at ARIN Re: Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed Mar 14 08:49:50 EDT 2007

> I see the proposal as having to be something that goes to IANA or be 
> global.  To get there it has to be discussed in all regions.  Maybe I 
> don't understand the global policy process, maybe there's a check-box 
> that was missed.
> "Public Policy" means public.  I am a SIG chair in the APNIC region 
> but my desk is near Washington DC.  There is no "they" and "us" when 
> it comes to the public discussion of the RIRs.

REGIONAL Internet Registry means Regional. Even though my desk is in
London, England, my company relies on ARIN as the prime supplier of
network addresses and our network in the USA is the core of our success
as a business. Even though many of us particpate in other regional fora,
including other RIRs, the fact is that the system still allows for
in-region policy-making.

I wish the NRO web page was more clear on global policy proposals but it
did seem to me that one should submit a proposal to them first, before
it goes to the RIRs. That way we, at the RIR level, only have to deal
with well-crafted and well thought-out global policy proposals.

> I may have made more proposal-specific comments here than I intended. 
> The message I am sending is that the roughness here is another reason 
> I have been asking for a more robust, committee-like approach for 
> preliminary discussion about ARIN policies and more 
> technically-motivated discussion about service levels and the like.

Personally, I think the problem is with the proposal submitters. We have
a discussion list here. No one says that you can't discuss a proposal
before submitting it. Why don't more people bounce around an idea and
get several opinions on the policy and its wording, before submitting
it. You need to get some contrarian views to get the rough edges off of
your policy before make it an official proposal.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list