[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
sethm at rollernet.us
Fri Apr 5 13:29:37 EDT 2013
On 4/5/13 9:47 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 4/5/13 11:37 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> I see no reason to have a policy motivated strictly by fees to remain
>> after fee changes that may or may not negate it, and to determine that
>> it should go back through the PDP. Otherwise we're just cluttering the
>> NRPM with irrelevant policy.
> This would essentially be a sunset-clause, we had issues the last time
> we tried on of those. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't do it but
> that I want more input before I add one into this policy.
> Note: we can't adopt this after Barbados it has to come back to the
> policy consultation at NANOG in June as a Recommended Draft Policy
> before it can be adopted.
I'm thinking more drastic, as in "fee schedule changed, instantly
struck". The policy proposal is dependent on fees, nothing more. So let
it be dependent on the possibly of those fees changing and force it to
go back through the PDP as soon as that happens.
More information about the ARIN-PPML