[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux
owen at delong.com
Tue Aug 3 02:36:37 EDT 2010
On Aug 2, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 16:32, Andrew Dul - andrew.dul
> <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> I have a little bit of a problem with the 116 text in that it attempts to
>> specify the technologies, but then has "etc" and "other transitional
>> technologies at the time of proposal" as escape clauses. Seems to me that
>> the current 4.10 language of some examples and staff discretion is OK.
> Just to throw out a thought as to the technologies, would something
> like the formulation of an IETF WG on tne transition technology be a
> replacement for a "small panel of experts"? Would the bar be too
> high? Too low? Would it pass muster with ARIN legal?
I think that the panel of experts idea probably isn't going to take hold.
I think it's going to be staff discretion aided by guidance from the BoT.
There just wasn't much support and a number of concerns surrounding
the implementation of a panel.
The problem with the existing 4.10 language, Andrew, is that staff
has basically said it is too open ended and wouldn't really give them
the tools to narrow the field at all. The escape clauses are there
for that reason, so that staff still has discretion to approve things
not considered in the policy text.
To clarify, the second clause is "other transitional technologies
NOT envisioned at the time of this proposal".
It's an attempt to prevent the policy from penalizing innovation in
Look for some updates to 116 in the near future which I hope will
greatly expand the support base for it.
More information about the ARIN-PPML