[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment - Last Call

[George, Wes E [NTK]]

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:13 PM
<snip>
Today, I'm not quite sure who this policy proposal was written by/for
and the point that I would focus on is that the intent has been lost
in the multiple iterations of it.

There was a suggestion to abandon this and rewrite it specifically for
that reason.
<snip>
Best,
-M

+1
I brought it up on the last round of emails on this topic, and rather than clog inboxes with another long mail, I will simply refer to my previous email.
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-August/014971.html (sorry for the side-scrolling, word wrap apparently didn't work properly)

I was expecting that the previous discussion would lead to a rework of this proposal to address the concerns, not simply putting it to last call with only minor changes. I intend no disrespect to the AC or their work on this policy thus far, but this says to me that the AC doesn't really know what to do with this policy to address the concerns either despite what I assume are several drafts and many discussions on the topic. I agree that discussing again in Dearborn will not produce different results than the last few meetings it has been discussed in (or the emails), but I'm not sure last call will produce any new direction either.
Unless the AC or an author or someone else who has a clear vision of the problem they are attempting to solve with this proposal can step forward and offer a method to change this draft so that it is much less ambiguous but still covers the intent, we need to abandon it and try again, with a policy that can be championed by one or more of the organizations that it is intended to help.
Otherwise, we're basically making policy decisions based on our interpretation of intent from 2nd and 3rd-hand info in order to help an indistinct group of people/orgs who are either not represented appropriately at ARIN by their parent organization, or unwilling to participate to provide guidance on this policy. My hunch is that it's the former. If that's the case, then those who believe this policy needs to happen need to be reaching out to those folks who can speak to this first-hand so that they can get involved and generate some new (and more productive) discussion on a new policy dealing with the matter at Dearborn or a subsequent meeting.

Thanks
Wes George

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.