jcurran at arin.net
Fri Feb 26 18:53:38 EST 2010
On Feb 26, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Fearghas McKay wrote:
> Terms of Reference
> • To draft a global policy proposal for the reservation of a large IPv6 block, taking into consideration the future needs of developing countries, as outlined in paragraph 23 of C09/29.
> • To further study possible methodologies and related implementation mechanisms to ensure ‘equitable access’ to IPv6 resource by countries.
> • To further study the possibility for ITU to become another Internet Registry, and propose policies and procedures for ITU to manage a reserved IPv6 block.
> • To further study the feasibility and advisability of implementing the CIR model for those countries who would request national allocations.
> • To assist in the implementation of the project called for by Resolution 64, taking into account the needs at regional and national level in terms of capacity building and allocation policies.
> • To report to ITU Council 2010.
Milton refers to "the ITU proposal for CIRs", whereas the terms of
reference to the ITU IPV6 working group meeting (of which I am an
invited expert) call for *drafting* such a proposal. Since Milton
references "the ITU proposal" as if it was already specified, and
his paper is indeed a listed working group meeting document, perhaps
he's aware of an actual ITU CIR proposal which will be forthcoming
to the rest of us soon?
Of course, the differences in approach between the ITU and the RIR
community should be very apparent just from this ITU IPv6 meeting
announcement. The idea that a closed (ITU members + invited guests
who are to "represent" the Regional Internet Registries) working
group could "draft a global policy proposal" which would then be
seen as sufficiently complete to allow assessment of the various
implementation details almost presumes that one has already given
up on any form of community-based policy; note specifically that
ARIN's Policy Development Process states: "Policy proposals may
be submitted by anyone in the global Internet community except
for members of the ARIN Board of Trustees or the ARIN staff"
exactly to prevent assumptions such as this from occurring...
While invited and going to Geneva for the working group meeting,
my most important contribution regarding that initial item in
the terms of reference is to invite the participants of the ITU
IPv6 working group to ARIN's Public Policy Meetings and this
mailing list so that any actual CIR proposal is made before this
community, discussed publicly on its merits, and otherwise follows
ARIN's Policy Development Process as required.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML