[arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies

[Scott Leibrand]

Thanks for your feedback, Ted.

I'm not speaking for the AC, but my own take is this:

Policies that have already been accepted onto the AC's docket will 
continue to be worked as before.  New policies (those received recently, 
and not yet accepted onto the AC's docket, as well as future policies) 
will get a higher level of scrutiny.

I think the way this should work is that originators continue to 
introduce proposals as before, and they get posted to PPML.  After a 
proposal is posted to PPML, the AC will monitor discussion to see if a 
policy proposal gets any significant support.  If so, and/or if the AC 
feels that the proposal would have a compelling benefit over the status 
quo, then the AC accepts the policy proposal onto our docket and works 
it as normal.  If not, then the AC votes to abandon it, and the author 
or any other interested party can petition it if desired.

I think the main message here is: we're seeing a bunch of proposals that 
may have only small or temporary benefits to the community, but could 
require significant time, discussion, and effort on everyone's part.  So 
you're about to see the AC start raising the bar for such proposals, and 
rejecting ones that we feel don't have a compelling benefit to the 
community and/or don't have significant community support.

What I'd like to see from the community as a result of this is a lot 
more clear statements of support or opposition to proposals when they're 
first introduced on PPML, and before the AC accepts them onto the 
docket.  If there's significant support for a proposal, we want to make 
sure to accept it, not force a petition.

Hope that helps.  Please let us know if you think we're on the wrong 
track here, or should tweak anything.  And please make sure you've 
commented on each new policy proposal as to whether you think the AC 
should take it up.

Thanks,
Scott


On Wed 5/12/2010 10:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> John,
>
>   Two questions and a comment.
>
> 1) Is the AC then choosing to take all existing proposals that
> are in the middle of the process and just short-circuit them?
>
> Or does this just affect NEW policy proposals from this time period
> onward?
>
>
> 2)What about policy proposals that affect BOTH IPv6 and IPv6
> assignments?  Are they going to be affected by this "IPv4
> short circuit" decision?
>
>
> To be perfectly honest it seems to me that this is going to
> force people who want to make IPv4 policy proposals to "float"
> proposal ideas on the mailing list, in order to see if there will
> be "strong initial support" rather than submit them to the policy 
> proposal process, which then "floats" them to the community
> and see if there's support via the policy proposal review process.
>
> In other words, the effective result will be that the AC merely
> succeeds in "informalizing" a portion of the policy proposal process
> through the law of unintended consequences.
>
> I don't know if this is what the AC really wants or not, but I am
> pretty sure that this decision of the AC isn't going to stop the
> flood of "IPv4 End Game" policy proposal ideas.
>
> As long as there's a severe shortage of IPv4 (which there will be
> post-runout) and IPv4 remains a requirement of Internet connectivity,
> people will be motivated to attempt to modify ARIN's stewardship of
> those resources via changes to the NRPM.
>
> Ted
>
> On 5/12/2010 8:51 AM, Sweeting, John wrote:
>> To All Members of the Community,
>>
>> The AC strongly believes that the whole of the ARIN community
>> requires and deserves a stable policy environment in order to better
>> prepare and plan for IPv4 run out and deployment of IPv6.
>>
>> With that in mind, the AC would like to advise the community that
>> unless a proposal affecting IPv4 assignments has a compelling benefit
>> for and receives strong initial support from the community the AC
>> will most likely choose to abandon the proposal. The AC recognizes
>> its commitment to the community and after introspection and
>> discussion has concluded that this is the best course of action.
>> Please provide comments either through PPML or directly to individual
>> AC members.
>>
>> On Behalf of the ARIN Advisory Council,
>>
>> John Sweeting, Chair This E-mail and any of its attachments may
>> contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is
>> privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time
>> Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the
>> individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the
>> intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
>> dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
>> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited
>> and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error,
>> please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the
>> original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>>
>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are
>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
>> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your
>> mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact
>> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.