[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-138 IPv6 Size Category Alignment

[John Curran]

On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:02 PM, Charles Gucker wrote:
> 
>       Thank you for the clarification.    Question is, the condition
> that exists today (as was outlined as the rational in the policy
> proposal) an administrative oversight (since the policy clearly stated
> the ISP minimum Block Size), or a disconnection in policy management ?

It's normal consequence of the policy adoption.

>   If it's the first, it should be able to be resolved outside of the
> PDP process, if the later, then this proposal serves to resolve it.

Because of arin-discuss mailing list is only for members, we tend to 
error of the side of caution and hold discussions on ppml if there may 
be policy implications to fee schedule changes.  (For example, this was 
the case with the ARIN IPv6 fee waiver discussion, as it had potential 
to materially impact IPv6 adoption)

I'd recommend discussing this policy proposal on PPML for now, as the
input is crucial regardless of whether the AC takes it as a policy item
or the Board considers as fee schedule revision.  If I receive guidance
that this should be taken strictly to the members, I will advise the 
PPML community promptly.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN