Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy

[J. Scott Marcus]

>	That seems reasonable. However there is the possiblity that
>	the IESG may put into play some material that the membership has not
>	seen or approved. This has happened before. 
> 	To give tacit approval to any future work that might be 
>	"best and most current" or may have all sorts of interesting 
>	modifications and ammendments is not being fair to the membership, 
>	regardless of the competency of the board or well-meaning IESG 
>	members. The membership seems to have settled on the policy as 
>	stated in the current IETF ID.  Not some possible proposed new 
>	wording. Do you think it is fair to allow such a loophole past 
>	the members?

I think that it's fair if our members and stakeholders are comfortable with
our doing so.  (Making decisions is presumably what ARIN pays us the big
bucks to do. ;^)

Anyway, that's exactly why I raised the issue.  I'd like to make sure, if
possible, that the Board has a broad enough mandate to close this IPv6
policy issue out cleanly and definitively when we next take it up.  I would
prefer to avoid the delay of yet another public policy review cycle UNLESS
some new substantive issue comes up that has not previously been discussed
adequately, either on the mailing list or in our Public Policy meetings.

By the way, please note that I am speaking for myself, not for the Board as
a whole.

Cheers,
- Scott