[arin-ppml] Possible amendment to proposal 116

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Hannigan, Martin <mahannig at akamai.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/10 2:23 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> the proposal be amended to have the BoT create a panel of experts which will
>> [] consider what should or should not qualify as a
>> transitional technology for purposes of NRPM 4.10 et. seq.
>
> The idea of the last /8 should be around transition and business v. uptake,
> not process and vagueness. You've been writing policy that makes it harder
> to conduBusiness doesn't handle vagueness very well. Can you explain why you
> think that this would be better than an acceptable use list?

Hi Martin,

Yes, I can explain.

First of all, an acceptable use list is the end result of the experts
panel. That's what they'd do: create an explicit list of acceptable
uses for for the addresses reserved by 4.10. Your plan isn't on the
list? No addresses for you until the experts panel reviews your
notion, decides to add it to the list and determines how many
addresses that plan justifies.

Why an experts panel? Why not hash it out here on PPML?

A. Hash it out on PPML? Really?

B. We don't yet have a good grasp on what the v6 transitional best
practices will be. Or any grasp really. We know there will be...
something.

As that picture clarifies, ARIN should be able to respond in a timely
manner. The 12 to 18 month cycle for policy changes is many things,
but timely isn't one of them. A small  experts panel, 3 to 5 people
that meet as needed, could amend the acceptable use list with a
turnaround time of weeks or even days.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004