[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for FuturePolicy Development

[Owen DeLong]

On Nov 22, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 11/22/10 4:59 PM, "Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Or one could simply require a periodic review of the utility being
>> served by 4.10 and redirect use of those addresses as befits the current
>> 'on the ground' reality.
>> 
>> bd 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but that doesn't need to be codified. We've almost all agreed
> that this policy is insufficient, and previously a large group of members
> supported an effort to modifiy it though petition.
> 
Which I will point out after we tried to give everyone their piece of a poiny
resulted in a policy that nobody liked.

The proposal that was actually petitioned sought merely to codify the intended
usage of 4.10 space. We'll never know if that policy would have succeeded,
but, it's quite clear that coming to consensus on something better than what
we have should not be attempted under a deadline.

> I'm going to make some adjustments to proposal 122 that will remove the fear
> mongering with respect to allowing these addresses to lapse into the free
> pool and the AC can take it up. The precedent has already been set. Change
> was already petitioned once. The fact that exhaustion is on the door step
> changes little IMHO.
> 
You call it fear mongering, I call it prudence. Be that as it may, yes, removing
the back-door-route to the free pool will make the idea far more acceptable.

Owen