[address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)

> ...but
> it seem to me more honest to say in advance what is our plan (which 
anyway,
> can be changed in the future).

Exactly! Al plans are subject to change so it is
not a question of honesty. 

> Somehow, in my point of view, it may help to
> avoid some PI assignments if they are not *really* needed, or when 
regular
> assignments are possible (for example your own case, suggesting that 
because
> the type of infrastructure/organization, its better to go for becoming 
an
> LIR).

This is why the PI policy requires the sponsoring LIR
to suggest alternate solutions to the applicant and the
PI form asks the applicant if the LIR did discuss alternate
solutions with them. I don't believe that an expiry date
is an "honest" way to address this issue. If it is an issue
then the policy should address it directly.

> Regarding the /32 or /48, I think we had very long discussions on that. 
I
> just don't believe the /48 will be reachable from all the networks,

This automatically causes the policy to expire because
if people notice that a policy doesn't work, they will
get rid of it at some future time.

On the other hand, we do not have the wisdom to see the
future so we should not assume that reachability will be
a problem. And if it is not a problem, then it is foolish
for the policy to automatically expire.

> Last, but not least, I also will prefer a "common" policy across the
> different regions, but I think we can't call it "global", because ICANN
> process, and in any case, it may be very difficult to coordinate that if 
not
> too late and impossible ...

The only way to achieve a common policy is to muddle through,
make lots of mistakes, keep an eye on the other 4 RIRs and
be willing to fix mistakes by changing policy WHEN WE HAVE
THE INFORMATION to see what is really a mistake and what is
not. We cannot legislate common policy in advance. And we
will get to a common policy quicker if we accept that it
is hard to write a 100% perfect policy but it is OK to 
have 50% of perfection the first time and then fix it
later with a new proposal.

--Michael Dillon