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

[Joe Maimon]

I cant find anything more specific to the process, so perhaps this 
thread should be considered the petition along with the original 
statement,  rephrased as follows.

I believe the policy proposal has potential timeliness issues with it 
along with the AC suggestion that it may have merit, as such to my view, 
the proper course of action assuming the community as a whole is not yet 
ready to deal head on with it is to put it on the docket for the next 
public policy meeting instead of the immediate upcoming one.

Personally, I found it well written and fairly convincing on its face value.

Am I missing some formality or proper address or is it done and should I 
just wait and see if support rolls in to turn this proposal into a draft 
discussion policy or not?


"
2.4 Discussion Petition

Any member of the community, including a proposal originator, may 
initiate a Discussion Petition if they are dissatisfied with the action 
taken by the Advisory Council regarding any specific policy proposal. If 
successful, this petition will change the policy proposal to a draft 
policy which will be published for discussion and review by the 
community on the PPML and at an upcoming public policy meeting.

The Discussion Petition must be initiated within 5 business days of 
announcement of the Advisory Council's decision regarding a specific 
policy proposal; the petition must include the proposal and a petition 
statement. The petition duration is 5 business days. The ARIN President 
determines if the petition succeeds (success is support from at least 10 
different people from 10 different organizations). In order to be 
considered at an upcoming public policy meeting, the petition must be 
successfully completed at least 35 days prior to that meeting.

A successful petition may result in competing versions of the same draft 
policy. Staff and legal reviews will be conducted and published for 
successful petitions.

All draft policies that are selected by the Advisory Council or 
successfully petitioned are published for review and discussion on the 
public policy mailing list.
"



William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Joe Maimon<jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>   
>> "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?
>>     
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> I don't plan to petition but I won't object if you want to.
>
> I suggest, however, that you're right: judging from the response,
> folks need more time to bounce the ideas around and consider what the
> most important results of IPv6 addressing policy really are. That may
> be less threatening if the ideas aren't looming overhead in the form
> of a policy proposal that must be ratified or rejected on schedule.
>
> At any rate, we can dust the proposal off at any time and use it as a
> reference to write a better one.
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
>