[arin-ppml] Alternative to proposal 125: Requiring IPv6 planning for IPv4 allocations
owen at delong.com
Mon Jan 10 21:29:54 EST 2011
The PDP main page is mute on the subject of whether or not they need to be public, saying only:
2.4 Discussion Petition
Any member of the community, including a proposal originator, may initiate a Discussion Petition if they are dissatisfied with the action taken by the Advisory Council regarding any specific policy proposal. If successful, this petition will change the policy proposal to a draft policy which will be published for discussion and review by the community on the PPML and at an upcoming public policy meeting.
The Discussion Petition must be initiated within 5 business days of announcement of the Advisory Council's decision regarding a specific policy proposal; the petition must include the proposal and a petition statement. The petition duration is 5 business days. The ARIN President determines if the petition succeeds (success is support from at least 10 different people from 10 different organizations). In order to be considered at an upcoming public policy meeting, the petition must be successfully completed at least 35 days prior to that meeting.
A successful petition may result in competing versions of the same draft policy. Staff and legal reviews will be conducted and published for successful petitions.
All draft policies that are selected by the Advisory Council or successfully petitioned are published for review and discussion on the public policy mailing list.
However, the petitions link off of that main PDP page says:
STARTING AND PARTICIPATING IN PETITIONS
ARIN staff posts the results of the AC’s decisions to the PPML shortly after the AC has met. The decisions which can be petitioned are specifically pointed out, and, the deadline for starting a petition is provided (five business days). Petitions take place on the PPML; those who wish to start a petition and/or participate in petitions must be subscribed to the list.
If you wish to petition a decision of the AC, send a message to PPML. The message must contain the proposal/draft policy text that you want to move forward and a petition statement. Point of contact information is also required, either to the entire PPML or topetition at arin.net.
Should a petition begin, ARIN staff will acknowledge the petition by posting to the thread, and indicate when the petition period will end (once started, a petition’s duration is five business days).
If you wish to support a petition, simply post a statement of support to PPML on the petition thread. Point of contact information is also required, either to the entire PPML or to petition at arin.net.
So I'm not sure where you come up with the idea that is not what the PDP says.
It is, indeed what the ARIN web site says under the PDP.
I, personally, think that given the low (10 people from 10 organizations) threshold
for a petition to succeed that requiring those 10 people to support it in public
is a perfectly reasonable requirement.
On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> That's not what the PDP says and that's not my experience. And if it
> is a requirement we should revisit that.
> On 1/10/11, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> You have to publicly post your support for the petition.
>> You can send your contact details privately in parallel to your public
>> statement of support, but, you have to provide both your statement
>> of support (which must be public) and your contact details (which
>> can be private) in order for support of a petition to be counted.
>> (At least that is my understanding of the process).
>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> The Suggestion:
>>> The reason why I am supporting "some" iteration of 125 is that one of
>>> it's benefits is that it requires a measure of cost sharing across the
>>> board which is likely to end up being much more burdensome to all
>>> without something along the lines of 125. Much of the discussion about
>>> 125 has been related to cost and demonstrates some of the inequities
>>> in our policies. 125 seems to be somewhat of a right sizing albeit
>>> theoretically could be a degree or two too far to the right. Your
>>> modification doesn't seem to do anything significant other than
>>> instill a false sense of security in applicants that are likely to do
>>> nothing without some requirements.
>>> Aside from completely throwing out the intent of 125 as you did with
>>> your modification, how would you contribute to make 125 more palatable
>>> and continue to allow it to have some level of bite, a real result for
>>> all of the effort that we're going to have to go through with respect
>>> to IPv6 transition?
>>> The Petition:
>>> I was about to remark that everyone should be reminded that you do not
>>> have to post publicly to support a petition due to the level of
>>> causticity of the subject, but I'm unclear if that's the case. I had
>>> responded privately to a petition previously and I believe it was
>>> counted, but don't recall being told otherwise. I checked the PDP and
>>> it seems vague with respect to any requirement to post to PPML. The
>>> interpretation that a response to ARIN directly should suffice would
>>> be reasonable IMHO.
>>> Could someone on the staff clarify that please?
>>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>>>> Given the contentious discussions around proposal 125, I'm getting the
>>>> sense that even if its petition succeeds, it'll be too controversial
>>>> to gain consensus. So I thought it might be worth posting an
>>>> alternative I drafted, and see what kind of reaction it gets. I don't
>>>> intend to introduce this into the policy process myself (as I'm not
>>>> convinced it's necessary), but if anyone (particularly supporters of
>>>> 125) feel that it would be a step in the right direction, feel free to
>>>> do so.
>>>> I'd also be interested to hear if anyone would be opposed to this
>>>> language, and if so, what aspects you object to. And, as always,
>>>> suggestions for improvement would be most welcome as well.
>>>> -Scott (speaking only for myself)
>>>> 4.1.8 IPv6 transition
>>>> All organizations requiring IPv4 addresses for Internet connectivity
>>>> or services must demonstrate a plan for interoperating with IPv6-only
>>>> portions of the Internet. Components of such plans might include, but
>>>> are not limited to: receiving IPv6 address space and using it for
>>>> dual-stack or parallel IPv6 deployment; or making use of translation
>>>> technologies to allow communication between IPv4 and IPv6 hosts.
>>>> 184.108.40.206 IPv6 connectivity
>>>> ISPs requiring IPv4 addresses from ARIN must demonstrate a plan for
>>>> connecting their customers with IPv6-only portions of the Internet, as
>>>> detailed in section 4.1.8.
>>>> 4.3.7 IPv6 transition
>>>> End-users requiring IPv4 addresses from ARIN must demonstrate a plan
>>>> for interoperating with IPv6-only portions of the Internet, as
>>>> detailed in section 4.1.8.
>>>> 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:
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>> 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:
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> Sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML