[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Nov 30 16:54:31 EST 2010

On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:

> On 11/30/10 2:09 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> On 11/30/10 09:44 CST, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>> ...
>>> That thread you quote isn't relevant, IMHO. It's already been established in
>>> the previous public policy meeting and following that the policy is flawed
>>> and we have multiple parties here agreeing.
>> I agreed earlier and still agree there there is a strong consensus that
>> 4.10 should be changed.
> I'm really not sure what the relevance of continuing to argue that 4.10 in
> it's present form is better than anything absent an actual proposal. There's
> a proposal on the table to suspend 4.10. It was modified to answer
> objections related to concerns that this /10 would be returned to the free
> pool. So far, there are no other objections I can act on other than
> consensus.
> As far as I can tell, there should be no roadblocks to suspending it so that
> we can fix it.
It should not be suspended pending fixing it. The original purpose for 4.10
is still valid and likely will be necessary in the meantime. I have raised this
objection previously.

> Not sure if you noticed:
> [arin-announce] Four /8 Blocks Allocated to the RIRs – 2.73% Remains at
Indeed... I doubt the IANA free pool will make it to 2011.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list