[arin-ppml] Curious about consensus

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Sun Apr 24 17:39:01 EDT 2011

On Apr 24, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:

> AC, All,
> I find myself curious about how the AC has determined consensus of support for moving these proposals to last call.
> Now I understand that the meeting polls are not even close to an actual vote procedure and should not be interpreted as such, but I was under the impression that they were valuable gauges and indicators for community opinion on draft proposals, by proxy of those interested enough to attend, as it is open to the world.
> I understand the AC has multiple inputs to consider and the public policy meeting polls are just one, albeit they are one that is fairly easy to quote, reference and record. I have done such and while some of the recent decisions on Draft Policies by the AC seem simple enough, there remains others I find myself curious as to how the AC came to the determination they did on their disposition.

In addition to the factors Leo and Owen have already expressed, it's
also worth noting that some of these proposals had strong consensus in
favor of them in principle, but more divided opinion on the draft
policy text frozen for the meeting.  In those cases a significant
amount of work has already been done to incorporate the views
expressed at the meeting.  Some of those proposals are now out for
Last Call on PPML.  In my opinion that is an opportunity for anyone
with any additional input they haven't already shared (or new input
since the latest revisions) to share it.  We can always revise draft
policies further, and send them out for another Last Call if needed,
before deciding whether to recommend them to the Board for adoption.

> I would really appreciate if some members could find the time to shed some light on their consensus evaluating processes and to share their thoughts concerning that portion of the AC's role in the policy crafting activities.
> http://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/
> From the meeting:
> ARIN-2011-2: Protecting Number Resources
> So those in favor number, 7; and those against number 45. There's a total number of people meeting in the room and remote are 116. That's where we are for that proposition. So next one.
> (The AC abandoned this one, to my eyes its the right call)
> ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses
> So the proposition before us is 2011-6. The total number of people in the room and by remote is 118. Voting for it as is, with no further assumptions made, six are in favor and 28 are against.
> (The AC moved this one to last call)

Owen summarized this one well I think.  The AC recognized a lack of
support for the text as written, but strong support for avoiding
getting addresses stuck in limbo while the global policy questions are
worked out.

> ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
> Okay. 2011-1, total number of people voting was 119. In favor of the proposition, 18 people; against the proposition, 11. So there we have that.
> (The AC punted on this one)

I expect we'll see some action on this one at one of our upcoming AC
meetings.  I am of the opinion that an inter-RIR transfer policy is
essential, and that the issue is timely enough that we should try to
get something out before the APNIC meeting in Busan, so that the APNIC
community can consider whether to make any further policy changes to
allow inter-RIR transfers to begin before we see too many of them
taking place outside the RIR system, and before transfer market prices
diverge too much between regions (encouraging other types of

> ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure
> In relation to 2011-4, total people meeting room, 112. In favor, 36; against, 10.
> (The AC moved this one to last call, looks like another good call)
> ARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
> Okay. So 2011-3. Total number of people in the meeting room and remote, 116. In favor of as written were 20. And against, 17.
> ...
> Thank you. So in relation to the idea that further work should be done on it and we move forward, the vote was 55 in favor and three against.
> (The AC moved this one to last call with significant revision)

Given the timeliness of this (several orgs have mentioned they're
holding up v6 deployment until this passes), and that we have indeed
done significant work on this since the version that was frozen before
the meeting, it seemed appropriate to get this out with the revisions.
 If anyone has any additional suggestions for how to improve the text,
we certainly can still incorporate those.

> ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
> Those in favor of 2011-5. There's a total number of people in the meeting room and remote of 116. In favor of it were 30 and against it were 15.
> (The AC moved this one to last call)

I have seen two main objections to this proposal.  One is that ARIN is
the wrong venue for this, and that the IETF would be the right place
for this.  In their assessment of this proposal, ARIN staff indicated
that this proposal, if passed in the ARIN region, would still need to
go to the IAB, and that if they felt it was inappropriate, ARIN would
not implement the proposal (in light of agreements ARIN has with other
Internet standards bodies).  That addresses that concern, as far as I
can tell.  The other objection is that some people don't believe that
there will be enough usage of this space to justify reserving a /10.
But given what we heard from the operators present at San Juan, and
given the additional feedback I've heard from operators directly, it's
pretty clear to me that allocating a /10 in this manner would result
in a savings of more than a /10 worth of public space.

Given the timeliness of the issue, I felt it was appropriate to move
this draft policy forward to last call to collect as much additional
input as we can from PPML and make a decision at an upcoming AC


> I fully expect that my faith and confidence in the hard work and good intentions of the AC volunteer community members will be rewarded.
> Thank you in advance.
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list