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

[Scott Leibrand]

The petition process is simply a support-gathering exercise on PPML.  If 
the petition is successful, then the proposal becomes a draft policy, 
and is presented by the petitioner or a designate (not by the AC) at the 
next public policy meeting.

Another side effect is that the AC no longer controls the text of the 
policy after a successful petition.  (I'm not sure who does, but I'd 
imagine it's the author and/or petitioner who can make revisions after a 
successful petition.)

This is the first time we've used this part of the new PDP, so we're all 
trying to figure out the mechanics, too.

-Scott

Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> 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.