[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - May 2010
Joe Maimon
jmaimon at chl.com
Fri May 28 10:36:08 EDT 2010
Bill,
Thank you for your response. I have the utmost respect for the work you
and your colleagues perform, voluntarily.
I believe summary judgment to be an accurate definition to apply to the
behavior you describe.
It is well within the AC role and rights and the only negative
connotations attributable to it are not of my own.
Perhaps you do not want to view it as such. But it is. We will have to
differ on that.
Thanks,
Joe
Bill Darte wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I would also like to chime in a bit here.
>
> I too felt abandonment was the appropriate action of the AC for the
> reasons that Scott and Owen have already detailed.
>
> Moreover, I want to response to one item in your text below. You speak
> of the AC "making or passing summary judgement".... I do not believe
> that will ever be the case. AC members take their role of assessing
> proposals against the tests of clear, technically sound and needed very
> seriously and add to that their understanding of support for proposals
> in the community. Abandonment or support thereafter takes
> place.....never the reverse.
>
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
>> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:48 AM
>> To: Scott Leibrand
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - May 2010
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list