[arin-ppml] Curious about consensus

[Bill Darte]

And I will remind you that 2008-6 which passed was intended by the
author (me) and community to be a 'wait until runout' or very near that
their by emergency powers, for implementation which would have allowed
the AC and community to work on crafting more explicit improvements to
it. And, this 2008-6 was to be a stop-gap measure and sunsetted. (full
text AND rationale below).

The Board decided to use their emergency powers immediately to put
something more to their liking in place immediately.

And note that and RSA was required to play....



Draft Policy 2008-6
Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses

Author: Bill Darte

Date: 24 January 2009

Policy statement:

8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses

For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, authorized resource
holders served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources
they
release to ARIN.

Number resources may only be received under RSA in the exact amount
which can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies.

Rationale:

In order for ARIN to fulfill its mission and to facilitate a continuing
supply of IPv4 address resources to its service community when ARIN
resources are no longer adequate, and to preserve the integrity of
documentation and ARIN services for those resources, this policy may be
implemented. Its intent is to preserve the current tradition of
need-based allocation/assignments for those still needing IPv4 resources
during a transition period as the industry adopts IPv6. This policy is
not intended to create a 'market' for such transfers and does not
introduce or condone the monetization of address resources or a view of
addresses as property. It does recognize that organizations making
available unused or no longer needed address resources may incur certain
costs that might be compensated by those acquiring the resources. This
policy is intended to be transient and light-weight and does not
encourage a sustained or continuing role for IPv4, but rather helps to
mitigate a transitional crisis that may emerge while the industry adopts
IPv6 in accordance with the recommendation of ARIN's Board of Trustees.

Timetable for implementation:

This policy, once ratified by the ARIN Board of Trustees, would be
implemented when either the free-pool of IANA addresses is exhausted or
IPv4 address resources in the ARIN Region reach a threshold of scarcity
recognized by the ARIN Board of Trustees as requiring this policy
implementation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:48 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Curious about consensus
> 
> In a message written on Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:33:22AM 
> -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Perhaps this is why the Board should think harder about using the 
> > Emergency PDP and trying to draft policy on their own.  If 
> you recall, 
> > when the Board took the action that created 2009-1 we were 
> less than 
> > two months from the community considering 2008-2 at a 
> meeting where it 
> > likely would have passed.
> 
> Scott Liebrand reminded me of a part of history had I wanted 
> to forget.  At the fall 2008 meeting 2008-2 was abandoned in 
> favor of the AC originated, and even more ill conceived 
> 2008-6 policy.  That was the one that was coming up at the 
> 2009 spring meeting.
> 
> > In this case I don't hold the AC much responsible though, the Board 
> > put them between a rock and a hard place basically telling them to 
> > either rubber stamp it, or if they took their time with it 
> the Board 
> > would just continue to go around them in the Emergency PDP.
> 
> Which means I must retract this statement.  The AC's choice 
> to go from 2008-2 (which, admittedly needed work) to the 
> remarkably requirement-free policy 2008-6 likely helped push 
> the Board to take action under the Emergency PDP.  Still, I 
> think the Board could have and should have drawn more 
> guidence from 2008-2.
> 
> My point though still stands, these things were discussed in 
> great detail by the AC over a period of several years, and at 
> the end of the day the BoT and AC ended up in this mess where 
> they threw the baby out with the bath water.  I think 
> everyone involved should be ashamed.
> 
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>