[arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104
On Dec 22, 2009, at 5:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> As one of the members of the AC who voted to abandon these proposals, I will
>> state that my reasoning was as follows:
>> 1. Basing address policy solely on the amount of money you are willing
>> to spend for addresses is completely contrary to my understanding of
>> the good of the community.
>> 2. Crafting internet addressing policy with the clear intent of making it easy
>> for larger networks to treat smaller networks or networks with smaller
>> budgets as second-class citizens by easily relegating them into a
>> filtration category based solely on assignment size is contrary to my
>> understanding of the good of the community.
> Is the community not capable of expressing this during the consensus
> call following formal presentation? You would substitute your judgment
> for theirs?
The PDP tasks the AC with determining if a proposal could result in good
policy. In my judgment, this policy could not without being modified in ways
that, to me, seemed incompatible with your rationale and stated intent.
As such, I felt it was best to abandon the proposal.
I do not know to what extent the other AC members who voted to abandon
these proposals have the same reasons as I do for their votes. I am
speaking only for myself, and, the above accusation is probably one
of the reasons I am the only one who has spoken up so far about
> I'm deeply disturbed by this post. My understanding is that the AC's
> mission is to help the community craft the best possible policy which
> expresses its will and to help the process move smoothly. Killing a
> well supported proposal this early obstructs the community's role in
> the policy process.
If you feel that the proposal is so well supported, the petition process
provides a very good safety valve for exactly that purpose.