[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2009
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 17:58:29 EDT 2009
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:06 PM, cja at daydream.com<packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Feel free to petition but the author of the proposal is the one who
>> interpreted and advocated abandonment. The intent of the proposal was to
>> extend the timeframe that folks could get 2-byte ASNs. ARIN's practice
>> regarding how they will hand out ASNs in essence does this without a policy.
> Why, so the AC can toss it again? If it doesnt say "global" or
> "transition" nobody really cares. It's not cool enough. :-)
The AC can't "throw out" a policy after a successful petition. In this
case, it would be a discussion petition, which would mean it'd go to
Dearborn for discussion before going back to the AC. So it could only
get abandoned if the AC decided there wasn't consensus for it after the
meeting (at which point it could be further petitioned if necessary).
In this case, the author of the proposal was an AC member and shepherd.
Once the reason she proposed the policy went away, she moved that we
abandon it, and the AC voted to do so (unanimously, IIRC).
There is an argument you could make that the date should be extended in
order to continue making 4-byte ASNs available by default up until the
point where the 2-byte pool is exhausted. If you'd like to discuss such
a proposal at Dearborn, a petition would be in order, followed by an
update (by the petitioner) to the Rationale of the proposal to reflect
the new reason for it.
P.S. There are a lot of policies on the docket right now, and we're
trying to prioritize them appropriately. Right now, that does mean that
most (but not all) of the proposals on the agenda for Dearborn pertain
to v4-v6 transition, but we welcome any feedback you have on which other
items require urgent work.
More information about the ARIN-PPML