[arin-ppml] Staff proposing policy.

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 28, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 06:47:12PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> To be clear, is this a suggest for staff to provide more realtime input 
>> with respect solely to implementation issues with existing and proposed 
>> policies, or also with respect to policy intention and goals?
>> 
>> e.g.  "If 20xx-n had its second sentence reworded to match the existing
>>       critical infrastructure definition, that would the clearer"
>> 
>> or also "If 20xx-n included World of Warcraft servers in the definition of 
>>         critical infrastructure, that might better serve the community.. 
>>         (and certainly would make some of us happy)"
> 
> I think both of those are useful, the second of course more so if
> staff can back it up with some reason.
> 
> "In 20xx-n you reference critical infrastructure.  We'd like to let
> you know we've had over 2100 different World of Warcraft servers
> submit that they are critical infrastructure and we've deined all
> of those requests.  Has the community considered that user base and
> if they qualify or not?"
> 
> The community would have no way to know people were trying to claim
> CI for World of Warcraft without the staff speaking up, as there
> is no other visibility into that process.
> 
> [In a fun side note, WoW rolled out a new version on Tuesday which
> supports IPv6!]
> 
Well, sort of... It might support IPv6 when/if they get servers deployed
with IPv6 on them.

As it stands currently, it has an IPv6 option on the network menu which
is grayed out.

However, I do applaud Blizzard for taking at least some positive step
forward towards IPv6. Hopefully they will get to the point where I can
actually use this new IPv6 capability in the client soon.

Owen