Support.
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:13:03PM -0400, ARIN wrote: > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 October 2016 and decided to send > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM to > Last > > Call: > > > > The AC provided the following statement to the community: > > > > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number > > policy by reducing any confusion caused by HD-Ratio remaining in the > NRPM. > > According to the staff and legal assessment, these changes align with > > current practice of ARIN staff. There is support and no concerns have > been > > raised by the community regarding this proposal on PPML. During the > Public > > Policy Meeting at ARIN 38 in Dallas, a concern was raised regarding the > > inclusion of comments on the fee structure in the policy statement. To > > address this issue an editorial change has been made while sending the > > policy to Last Call, removing the following unnecessary text from the > > proposed section 6.5.9.2, "(both policy and fee structure) unless or > until > > the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community > > networks." > > > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should > be > > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call will expire > on 9 > > November 2016. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their Last Call > review. > > > > The full text is below and available at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > > > Regards, > > > > Communications and Member Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > > > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > > Resource Policy: > > > > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number > > policy by reducing any confusion caused by HD-Ratio remaining in the > NRPM. > > According to the staff and legal assessment, these changes align with > > current practice of ARIN staff. There is support and no concerns have > been > > raised by the community regarding this proposal on PPML. > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the > vestigial > > references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 > > resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of > /56s > > as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the > > community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has > always > > allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without > > need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still > permitted > > under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it > attempts to > > eliminate some possible confusion. > > > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the > > community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace > > 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly > > equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent > changes > > to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the > > Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on > community > > networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network > could > > receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other > similar > > sized end-user would receive under existing policy. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > > > While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type > > organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much > > tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they > tend > > to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than > > provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to > > provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing > them > > to use end-user criteria. > > > > 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria > > > > To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to > > ARIN’s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network > > under section 2.11 of the NRPM. > > > > 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated > as > > an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes. > > > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 > > resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be > > governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. > seq. > > > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the > > policies governing those resources independent of their election to use > this > > policy for IPv6 resources. > > > > Delete section 2.8 — This section is non-operative and conflicts with the > > definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > > > Delete section 2.9 — This section is no longer operative. > > > > Delete section 6.7 — This section is no longer applicable. > > > > Comments: > > > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > > Anything else > > > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio > has > > been unused for several years. > > > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the > > Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its > inception. As > > a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community > > Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio > from > > the NRPM. > > > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, > we > > are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the > > given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain > board > > action on actual fees. > > > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community > networks > > policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. > > The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio > > rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
