[ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group.

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Oct 9 17:28:13 EDT 2007

Hi Raul,

  Just a quick comment.  You recognize that we have separate RIR's
because it was recognized that different regions cannot all operate
the same way.  You should also recognize that the diminishing pool
of unallocated IPv4 is not the same level of concern in all regions
and that some regions do not need or want to implement policy affecting

  I think it would be wise to wait for consensus on dealing with IPv4
runout in ARIN first, before trying to encourage the rest of the RIR's to
go make policy regarding IPv4 runout.  In all liklihood, for the ones
that runout is a non-issue, they are merely waiting to see what ARIN
does anyway and then just do that.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Raul Echeberria
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:18 AM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group.
>Dear all:
>I would like to share with all of you this
>proposal. Since it is not a policy proposal, I
>don't know really how to proceed, but I guess
>that it is enough to send it to the list.
>This proposal doesn't intend to substitute the
>Policy Proposal "2007-16 IPv4 Soft Landing" and
>is not incompatible with the discussion of this
>proposal and/or its eventual adoption.
>I will send the same proposal to the others RIRs'  poilicy lists.
>Proposal for the creation of a cross-regions working group
>Some proposals have been submitted through some
>RIR’s policy development process, which focus on
>the gradual modification of the requirements for
>receiving IPv4 addresses as the pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses
>Most or all proposals which have been made appear
>to be incomplete and ineffective if approved in
>only one region. Therefore, it is proposed the
>creation of a working group made up by two
>appropriate respected individuals active in the
>policy process within each region’s community.
>These ten individuals would work on one or more
>joint proposals that could then be processed in
>every region according to their corresponding policy development processes.
>The objective of the working group would not be
>to produce proposals for global policies, but
>proposals to be sumbitted to every RIRs. The
>conclusion could be, of course, that the
>proposals should be different in each region.
>Since the proposal (if there are any) should go
>later through each Policy Development Process,
>there will not be any impact of this proposal in
>the independence of each region to adopt the
>poclicies that are considered more convenients.
>Naturally, the proposals that have already been
>presented in relation to this issue would be
>important input for this working group, one
>possible conclusion being that these proposals
>contain the best possible policies and should be
>presented. Without this level of coordination, it
>will be difficult to obtain proposals to be
>submitted for discussion in all regions with
>reasonable chances of success. One member of
>each  RIRs staff would also participate in this working
>group, in the capacity of observers, so as to
>provide all the support, advice and information
>that the group deems necessary. IANA will also be
>invited to appoint up to two persons to the working
>group in the same condition of observers.
>The working schedule would be defined by the
>group itself, but it should be anticipated that
>the proposals, in case it is decided they are
>needed, be presented for their discussion as soon as possible.
>The following are some of the ideas that have
>already been presented either formally or
>informally and that will be available  for the
>consideration of this working group (but not limited to) :
>·        Increasing the requirements for
>receiving additional allocations as IANA’s
>central pool of addresses diminishes.
>·        Adding to the current requirements the
>requirement to develop the availability of IPv6 infrastructure.
>·        Reducing the sizes of the blocks that
>are allocated as IANA’s central pool of addresses diminishes.
>·        Including within the gradual increase of
>restrictions the requirement that when one RIR
>runs out of addresses the others will
>automatically be moved to a more conservative
>phase in order to minimize RIR shopping.
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
>ARIN Public Policy
>Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the
>ARIN Member Services
>Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list