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

[Joe Maimon]

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 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.)
Thanks for the clarification.
>
> 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.

We wont get too far without some support for this petition.

>
> -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.
>
>