ARIN-prop-36: Removal of IPv6 Operational Information from NRPM

2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity

评估: 一致 · Marla's April 2004 and April 2005 explanations consistently present 2004-3 as clearer wording for a use already permitted. The initial request for both pro and con comments is meeting preparation, not a contrary stance.

条件: Her description of historical practice is attributed to her; it does not independently prove every past application decision.

2004年4月1日

it just seems it needs to be re-textualized in a very point blank manner.

2004年4月1日

This policy is simply striving to achieve clarification.

2005年4月19日

Its not a change. Its a clarification.

2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites

评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · One contribution regards 2005-1 as a solution to several issues and argues that policy can change when there is reason and support. It does not establish how her position evolved.

条件: A suggestion that policy motivate technical improvement is not evidence that such improvement occurred.

2006年4月28日

I see 2005-1 as one solution for a couple different "issues".

2006年4月28日

Policy is not set in stone and can always be changed if given reason and support to do so.

2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites

评估: 一致 · Calling 2004-3 a clarification of existing practice is compatible with accepting that 2005-1 or another policy may later change. The first describes the claimed effect of a particular text; the second concerns the ability to revise policies with reasons and support.

条件: The proposals and claims have different subjects, so their wording cannot be used to manufacture a reversal.

2005年4月19日

Its not a change. Its a clarification.

2006年4月28日

Policy is not set in stone and can always be changed if given reason and support to do so.

2007-22: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · Marla explicitly remains undecided on extending the timeframe for additional requests. She summarizes arguments about aggregation, equal treatment, staff scrutiny and hoarding without adopting either side. A single dated undecided contribution cannot establish stability or reversal.

条件: The draft and numbered proposal entries refer to the same message; they are not independent positions. · The surrounding original proposal explains the subject but is not her authored endorsement.

2007年8月22日

Not sure if I am for or against this one.

2007年8月22日

Below is are the pro's and con's I pulled from ppml and I can understand.

2007年8月22日

Thus...leading to my indecision at this point.

ARIN-prop-55: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · Marla explicitly remains undecided on extending the timeframe for additional requests. She summarizes arguments about aggregation, equal treatment, staff scrutiny and hoarding without adopting either side. A single dated undecided contribution cannot establish stability or reversal.

条件: The draft and numbered proposal entries refer to the same message; they are not independent positions. · The surrounding original proposal explains the subject but is not her authored endorsement.

2007年8月22日

Not sure if I am for or against this one.

2007年8月22日

Below is are the pro's and con's I pulled from ppml and I can understand.

2007年8月22日

Thus...leading to my indecision at this point.

2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use

评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · Marla explicitly remains undecided between encouraging IPv6 adoption and obtaining the return of unused legacy IPv4 blocks. Her reading of the current RSA explains the tension she sees; it is not an unqualified vote for the proposal or proof that her view later changed.

条件: This is one contribution represented under both draft and numbered entries. · Her reading of the RSA is attributed to her and is not treated as an independently established legal conclusion.

2007年8月22日

Undecided on this one.

2007年8月22日

We need anyone that is willing to go to Ipv6 space. But we also need Legacy blocks to be handed back in that arent being used. I feel stuck in the middle.

ARIN-prop-54: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use

评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · Marla explicitly remains undecided between encouraging IPv6 adoption and obtaining the return of unused legacy IPv4 blocks. Her reading of the current RSA explains the tension she sees; it is not an unqualified vote for the proposal or proof that her view later changed.

条件: This is one contribution represented under both draft and numbered entries. · Her reading of the RSA is attributed to her and is not treated as an independently established legal conclusion.

2007年8月22日

Undecided on this one.

2007年8月22日

We need anyone that is willing to go to Ipv6 space. But we also need Legacy blocks to be handed back in that arent being used. I feel stuck in the middle.

2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites · 2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use

评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · Seeing provider-independent IPv6 policy as useful in 2006 is compatible with being undecided in 2007 about the conditions for legacy holders. The later message still values IPv6 adoption while weighing reclamation and contractual requirements. It does not establish withdrawal of the earlier position, but it also does not provide a settled view on the later proposal.

条件: Different eligibility conditions must not be collapsed into a single yes-or-no position on IPv6. · A single contribution on each proposal leaves the longer-term comparison limited.

2006年4月28日

I see 2005-1 as one solution for a couple different "issues".

2007年8月22日

We need anyone that is willing to go to Ipv6 space.

2007年8月22日

I feel stuck in the middle.