[ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:12:59AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Assigning the Chair's name as author may be "better". 

Speaking as Chair, I did not author the proposal.

This isn't a case of one or two AC members brining a proposal and
asking for the entire AC's name to be on it.  The AC held multiple
sessions on this subject and worked together to develop this proposal.
It is truly a group effort, with portions of the proposal written
by different people.

As a policy moves through the process the AC considers it in two
very different lights.  Our "initial review" is done simply to make
sure the policy is ready to be discussed.  At this stage we reject
things because they are poorly written, hard to understand, or we
feel the issue has been beaten to death and there's no reason to
discuss it further.  As a gateway to formal discussion the bar is
relatively low.  That's the step that has already been taken.

Later in the process the AC will meet again, consider all of the
discussion on PPML and at the meeting and decide if the proposal
achieved community consensus.  The AC takes this part of the job
quite seriously, and I have every confidence that the AC will only
move this proposal along if there is strong community support.

If there is still worry though, there are still two more ways out.
After the AC decides to move it along it goes to last call where
the community can point out that the process was not followed and
document their concerns.  Those comments initially go back to the
AC.  Were the community to say we got it wrong I'm sure the AC would
reconsider their actions.

Last, but not least, once all of this is done it must go to the
Board.  One of their many checks is that the IRPEP was followed.
The Board has returned proposals to the AC before with concerns
over the process and asked for clarification.  I have no doubt that
if AC were to "rubber stamp" the proposal the Board would refuse
to implement it.

Were I not on the AC I would likely also be a skeptic.  I won't ask
anyone to just "trust us", but rather would simply ask that you
monitor the process and speak up if you see the AC going against
the will of the community.  Right now it is much more important we
discuss the merits of a very important proposal for the future of
our entire industry.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080228/c9f05334/attachment.sig>