[arin-ppml] Petition for discussion of policy proposal 116 (Permitted Uses of Space Reserved Under NRPM 4.10)

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The AC abandoned the following proposal:
>>
>> 116. Permitted Uses of space reserved under NRPM 4.10
>>
>> The AC voted to abandon this proposal because of a lack of sufficient
>> support to accept it as draft policy. Several AC members felt it not
>> appropriate that ARIN policy dictate any specific architecture or method
>> a network should use to transition from v4 to v6.
>
> This is my formal request to initiate a discussion petition of proposal 116.
>
> If you would like to sign this petition, please do the following:
>
> 1. Send a message stating "I support the petition for discussion of
> proposal 116"
> to arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>


I support the petition for discussion of proposal 116.

I would like to see it advance to Draft Policy.

Joe Maimon
CHL

>
> 2. Either include your contact information and organizational affiliation in
> the original message to ppml or send it in a separate message to
> petition at arin.net <mailto:petition at arin.net> (use this address if you do
> not want your contact
> information disclosed to PPML).
>
> Thank you.
>
> I believe that the AC should not have abandoned this proposal for the
> following
> reasons:
>
> 1. I believe that there is community support for clarifying valid uses and
> preventing abuses of space reserved for transitional technologies under
> section 4.10.

I believe that it was premature for the AC to come to that conclusion, 
especially considering what the difference between supported PP and 
unsupported PP based on ppml chatter seems to be.

Sampling size does not seem very large lately, especially compared to 
some of the more exciting times of the not to distant past.

I am of the opinion that the AC should modify course and attempt to rein 
in their opinions on the desirability of proposed policy in favor of 
fostering wider discussion and participation, as it appears to me that 
the opposite may be occurring.

I believe that at this time they are likely on the negative side of that 
delicate balance.

I recognize that my viewpoint on the matter is likely an outlier.

I view heated use of 4.10 as one of a few potential worse case 
scenarios, where IPv4 stewardship has failed to deliver in response to 
demand, either by choices made or by circumstances as they befall, 
leaving 4.10 among the last of the available dry land.

Additional restrictions and clarifications on 4.10 are either highly 
important or highly irrelevant. For the former, discussion should be 
fostered. For the latter, objections should be stilled.

Joe