[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
marty at akamai.com
Mon Nov 22 07:17:28 EST 2010
On 11/20/10 1:27 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>> I agree. My date was deliberate though. I don't want to drag this out to
>> Philly as we risk being exhausted by then.
> Then don't. Close the window in August, well before Philly. Pick which
> meeting you want to be the last chance for community consensus and
> close the window just enough time later for a draft policy to have
> gone through last call and ratification. Don't drag the deadline out
> to the close of the following meeting.
That makes sense. It coincides with AC and BoT elections too which I think
is a good thing with respect to this.
On a higher level, I've read two points that have little substance with
regards to why this proposal shouldn't move forward.
1. 122 backdoors this to the freepool! Dangerous! Harmful! [handwave]
I had hoped that it would be clear that something has to be done to preserve
this in a manner that works for most if not all of us. The implication that
some would seem intent to actually battle this out to the point where we
would lose transition addresses is egregious. I think timing this to
coincide with AC elections is probably better. See below.
2. What about the rationale in 2008-5?
What about it? That was over a year ago and several AC members have noted
that the policy is insufficient. Are we really going to let something this
important go forward in a half-baked manner?
Three people seem to be fixated on the expiration. I removed the CI argument
and I'm willing to remove that argument as well.
I could rewrite this to suspend 4.10 and upon expiry, re-implement. That
would seem to address all objections and allow for this to be fully
addressed at election time if need be.
More information about the ARIN-PPML