[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Nov 30 18:41:58 EST 2010
On 11/30/10 15:54 CST, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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
I apologize, I should have read the changes more closely or maybe got
more sleep last night, probably both with a causal linkage. So sorry.
I guess, I no longer have any fundamental objection to PP#122 as it has
been modified. Worst case scenario it delays implementation of 4.10
until Aug 10 2011, I could probably live with that.
But, on the other side what do you perceive the harm would be to of
allowing 4.10 to be implemented as it is? Or, will be if we fail to
come to a consensus to fix it.
>> As far as I can tell, there should be no roadblocks to suspending it so that
>> we can fix it.
Well maybe fix it, the point of my earlier email was I'm confident of a
consensus that we need to make fixes, I not confident of a consensus on
what those fixes should be. But I'm ready and willing to move on to
that discussion ASAP. The timetable for getting a Draft Policy ready
for the Spring Policy Meeting is mighty short at this point. Are you
suggesting that PP#123 is the replacement for 4.10? The way I read #123
is that it is in addition to 4.10, do I have that wrong?
> 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.
And Owen, what do you perceive the harm would be to suspend 4.10 until
Aug 10 2011?
>> Not sure if you noticed:
>> [arin-announce] Four /8 Blocks Allocated to the RIRs – 2.73% Remains at
Yep, about 30 sec before your response.
> Indeed... I doubt the IANA free pool will make it to 2011.
I have an additional request; Given the amount of scrutiny that our
community is likely to be put under in the coming year, for the above
I would like to see a clear and significant (more than just the usual
suspects) consensus that the community both supports these policies and
more importantly that the community supports the use of the emergency
policy process regarding these policies. It needs to be clear to any
third-party who reviews PPML at some future date, maybe as few as a
couple months from now what the communities consensus was.
Therefore, please speak up on these policy proposals, and if you haven't
posted lately to PPML, this is an excellent opportunity to rectify that
So please let everyone know your thoughts, even if that is as simple as;
"I support PP#122 and support use of the emergency policy process", or
not as the case may be. If you can provide some reasons why, all the
better, but that's not required.
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-PPML