[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - May 2010

[Joe Maimon]

Scott,

Thank you for your detailed response. I had been hoping to clarify 
whether the AC statement of abandonment specifically referred to 
objections to the proposal itself such as below, and I appreciate your 
confirmation.

If the worst case scenario is that one more /8 lies fallow (among the 
already existing large numbers of unused/unusable) while we cannot come 
to agreement on how best to use it, I do not believe that to be all that 
terrible. All that would be lost was the default 3 month consumption 
rate. Much worse than that would be our public dithering and bickering 
over it. In any event, there are existing safeguards and expiration of 
reservation could easily be added to the proposal. I do not share your 
concern.

4.10 currently does NOT specify it MUST come from the last /8. That is 
current policy and the proposal does not modify that in any way. It 
explicitly cites 4.10 as an example of policy resources that MAY come 
from the reserved resource. The proposal reserves and does not mandate.

This leaves it in ARIN's hands, where I believe it belongs.

What concerns me most is the possible trend the AC is making of passing 
summary judgment on proposals. It is certainly their privilege, but I 
dont like where that road may lead.

A proposal of how to use the space is met with that it is too late to 
gain consensus. A proposal to not use up the space and to give us time 
to come to consensus, potentially in the face of changing circumstances, 
is met with fears of not using the space at all. This chain of logic 
produces nothing but dithering.

I view 4.10 as a last ditch escape route, one that if we have to rely on 
it probably means we screwed up real bad. Its better than nothing, but 
it could potentially be made much better. There is plenty of time for 
further attempts at refining it, but PP#112 would have enabled even more 
time, for that and for other purposes as well.

My worst case scenario is that shortly after this last /8 is blown 
through at the same rate of consumption as all previous, it is made 
plainly obvious, either to ourselves or to our critics, that we should 
have done something much more constructive with it.

I believe the AC response to this proposal to be flawed on the 
technically sound front. I also reiterate by reference my concerns 
regarding the AC's new/refined/altered stance on IPv4 proposals.

Thanks,

Joe

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Joe,
>
> Speaking for the entire 15-member AC is hard, so I'll speak for myself
> instead. I believe that many other AC members feel much the same way,
> but they can speak for themselves...
>
> I don't believe that it is constructive at this time to lock up IPv4
> resources in such a way that they cannot be used for any purpose. If the
> community feels that additional space should be reserved for purposes
> similar to 10.4.2, then the proposal reserving such space should specify
> what it will be used for, not leave that up to future policy. As IPv4
> gets more and more depleted, I believe it will only get harder to come
> to consensus on how to use any such reserved space, so there is a very
> real risk of resources being left in limbo if we were to adopt a policy
> like #112.
>
> Additionally, as mentioned in the staff comments, the /10 reserved by
> NRPM 4.10 does not necessarily come out of the 10.4.2 last /8. Others
> may not share this view, but when I read that the policy intentionally
> restricts the use of the last /8 in a way that even the existing policy
> it references may not be able to use it, I got the impression that this
> proposal was sending a "sour grapes" ultimatum.
>
> In any event, the AC has been tasked by the Board with advancing "clear,
> technically sound and useful policy" with "support and consensus ...
> among the community" (https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html). I don't
> believe that proposal 112 met either of those tests.
>
> With regard to to the best path forward, I believe there were some
> elements of your other proposal, #110, that would be useful in
> clarifying how space reserved by NRPM 4.10 may be used. I would
> encourage you to take the advice first posted to PPML by Chris
> Grundemann, and separate out the independent ideas presented in proposal
> 110. Here are some particular quotes from that message that I agree with:
>
> On Fri 4/23/2010 9:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>> I see the two primary ideas presented as:
>> 1) Modify section 4.10 (which reserves IPv4 space for IPv6 migrations).
>> 2) Reserve an IPv4 block for new entrants.
>>
>> My first piece of advice to the author is to acknowledge that these
>> goals are almost completely unrelated to each other; they do not need
>> to be part of the same policy and probably should not be part of the
>> same proposal if you wish to ever gain consensus. Separating them into
>> two distinct proposals will make the details of what and why you are
>> proposing them much more clearly understandable.
>
>> If this proposal were separated into two distinct (and clear)
>> proposals I would be happy to entertain them both individually and
>> discuss them on their own merits.
>
> I would also point to another useful tactic mentioned recently by Marty
> and John: start by posting simple ideas and goals to PPML for
> discussion, followed by text to support those goals. You should be able
> to get quite a bit of valuable feedback on individual items, which you
> can then incorporate into a follow-up policy proposal.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Scott
>
> On Wed 5/26/2010 5:19 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>
>>
>> Member Services wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The AC abandoned Proposal 112 "Utilization of 10.4.2 resources only via
>>> explicit policy" due to the proposed added restrictions to be placed
>>> upon the resource allocation process. Additionally, there was not much
>>> support on the PPML.
>>
>> Considering that adding restrictions on resource allocations from the
>> last /8 is the entire proposal, I read this statement as the AC saying
>> they abandoned the proposal because they personally did not support it.
>>
>> Would that be correct? I would appreciate any clarification that could
>> be made available.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joe
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>