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

[Scott Leibrand]

Raul,

I think this kind of thing would best be addressed through an informal 
working group of some type, which could submit proposals to each RIR's 
PDP just like any other author/originator can do.  As a member of the 
AC, I would welcome any proposals such a group could draft and submit, 
and would like to work with such a group, independent authors, etc. to 
make sure that we have appropriate global input to the development of 
any global or globally coordinated policies.

-Scott

Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
> For those that are following the ARIN XXI 
> meeting, this is the email that I mentioned in the mike.
> The frist goal of a working group like this would 
> be to explore the feasibility and/or convience of this kind of policies.
> 
> If somebody from ARIN community want to become 
> involved in an initiative like this, please contact me.
> 
> Raúl
> 
> 
> At 10:17 a.m. 09/10/2007, Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.
>>
>> Raúl
>>
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> 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 diminishes.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ===============
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.