<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Emergency PDP process</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I believe that this is a fine set of questions which should be answered and I think the timeframe is overdue. It should have been accomplished after the first use of the emergency powers of the Board. I understand from subsequent statements that they plan to be more deliberate next time....but whether there will be 'tests' as you say, I am not aware.<BR>
<BR>
Personally thought, I think that at IANA run out, there will be time to consider all these measures and proposals. John Curran, at an event last evening stated that he expects 6 mos. or more until ARIN run out.<BR>
<BR>
I believe emergency constitutes...MUST do something NOW or else OBVIOUS and CERTAIN burdens will be sustained and that those burdens will be of SUBSTANTIAL magnitude without reasonable alternatives.<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps that's an arguable start.<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of George, Wes E [NTK]<BR>
Sent: Fri 12/3/2010 1:54 PM<BR>
To: Chris Grundemann; William Herrin<BR>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Emergency PDP process<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
I think that this whole discussion throws into sharp relief the absence of<BR>
implementation details around how to determine a legitimate emergency based<BR>
on the current text in 7.1 of the PDP. Perhaps the AC, board, PDP committee<BR>
and ARIN legal counsel should put their heads together on this ASAP and<BR>
bring out a draft recommendation for a series of tests that can be used to<BR>
justify any emergency policy. These would be either questions that must be<BR>
answered, objective standards to define a problem, etc.<BR>
Put it before the community for comment. Even if it's not formally added to<BR>
the PDP, or not added in time for this round of emergencies, it would really<BR>
help to have some of that rigor. Chances are quite good that every policy<BR>
recommendation that might be considered an emergency will be equally<BR>
polarizing within the community, and it would be helpful to not have to rely<BR>
solely on (charged, emotional) rhetoric on the part of those for and against<BR>
the issue to determine whether something is actually an emergency. "I'll<BR>
know it when I see it" isn't good enough in this case I don't think...<BR>
<BR>
Put another way - AC members: assume that you have to make a recommendation<BR>
to the board tomorrow on these two emergency policies. I assume that this<BR>
would take the form of 2 votes:<BR>
First, should prop X be treated as an emergency or deferred to the next PP<BR>
Meeting?<BR>
Follow-on, if the underlying issue prop X regards is an emergency, then<BR>
should prop X be implemented?<BR>
What questions do you ask of the authors, of yourselves, of your fellow<BR>
members, and of the community to make your decision as to whether they're<BR>
emergencies? Note that I'm thinking in general terms here on how you would<BR>
answer question #1, using these policies as an example, not looking for<BR>
questions specific to should you/should you not implement.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>