[arin-ppml] Petitioning AC abandonment of Policy Proposal 92 Alternate IPv6 Allocation
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 17:27:14 EDT 2009
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
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.
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
>> Personally, I found it well written and fairly convincing on its face
>> 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
>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>> 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:
>> 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.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML