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

[Joe Maimon]

Sweeting, John wrote:
> Thanks Joe,
>
> I need to check but I believe that by petitioning this decision it means that you are taking on the responsibility of presenting it at the next PPM in order to gain community support. The AC stands ready to help but a petition does not return the proposal to the AC's docket until after it has been presented at the PPM and community support has been proven. I will ask ARIN staff to elaobrate on this.
>
>   

I dont quite understand how your petition process makes sense or is at 
all contained in the text quoted below. The dates alone should render it 
impossible to petition the AC decision at ppm. Furthermore to what 
purpose does the petition serve at this point if not to return it to the 
AC docket?

If you perhaps mean that by petitioning here on ppml, there is a 
side-effect of slapping my name up as official presenter of the draft 
policy, well that was part of my original query.

>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Fri Jun 26 15:26:52 2009
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC abandonment of Policy Proposal 92 Alternate IPv6 Allocation
>
> 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
>>
>>   
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
> Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
> or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
> is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
> of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
> copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>
>
>