[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6

[Stephen Sprunk]

Steve Bertrand wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>   
>> Perhaps we can put a safety valve on the proposal so that if by some bizarre happenstance 10,000 IPv6 /32 allocations happen without further updates to the policy, the two removed lines are restored.
>>     
>
> ...and I also think that some form of clause such as Bill's above, allowing emergency automatic reinsertion of restrictions like this is a reasonable compromise, between those who want the restrictions, and those that don't.
>   

In theory, the BoT can add whatever "emergency" policies it deems
necessary, so such a statement is superfluous.  However, history (not
specifically ARIN but in general, e.g. 1930s Germany) tells us that we
should do everything possible to avoid encouraging the use of "emergency
powers" lest it become a habit.  That path leads to the Dark Side(tm).

Therefore, I object to removing policy language from the NRPM with the
assumption that the BoT will magically reinsert it at some point in the
future.  If we want this to be at the BoT's discretion, better to simply
write a proposal that says the BoT can waive the relevant policy
section(s) under some condition, e.g. until there are 10k IPv6 routes,
but leave them there so they will be reinstated by default when the
waiver ends.  (And I'm against the BoT having such discretion; I'm just
pointing out the IMHO correct way of implementing that bad idea.)

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3254 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090903/b087a99d/attachment.bin>