[arin-ppml] AC abandonment of Policy Proposal 92 Alternate IPv6 Allocation

[Joe Maimon]

"The AC believes that Policy Proposal
#92 has some merit in concept, but does not believe that the problem
addressed is immediate nor of sufficient scope currently. Furthermore,
the benefits presumed may be achieved in ways other than using the
discrete pools for address allocation. We hope that the author continues
to discuss this issue with the AC and community."

I believe there are timeliness issues involved, especially as it
pertains to routing policy, as well as an interest in dispelling
uncertainty with regards to ipv6 rollout which may be a factor in
delaying migration.

I would suggest a more appropriate action would be to delay working on
the proposal until it has had more time to mature in our minds,
something like what happened with policy proposal 95, customer
confidentiality.

Is it considered polite to defer to a policy proposal's author for a
discussion petition? Ia a petition under consideration?