[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2010
The AC has a responsibility to the Internet community and the ARIN
service region to ensure that policy it recommends is clear and
understandable as well as needed. The AC makes recommendation to
dispose of a policy through or out of the PDP by vote, needing 8,
individual, votes to take an action. In that they are individuals and a
collective in their responsibility.
The AC owes you and the community the same transparency....the formal
posting of its actions on the ppml along with statements about those
actions when something is dropped from the PDP. It also owes you minutes
of the meetings and those will be forthcoming.
It, in my opionion, does not owe you a word-for-word transcript of the
I have been as clear as I can be about the disposition of 2010-10...the
reasons it was tabled and the ambiguity that resulted from the wording
used when I motioned for the Draft Policy to be forward to last call. I
regret that is went contrary to your interests, mine and I believe the
rest of the community's.
As the Primary Shepherd for the Draft Policy 2010-10, I am currently
making every effort to address the concerns of my colleagues on the AC,
to produce clear, appropriate and acceptable language that will allow me
to make a successful motion at our November AC meeting. That is my duty
If will fulfill that duty and responsibility to the best of my ability
as I have always. I believe that the AC not only fires on all
cylinders, but does a heroic job in their efforts to secure the best and
most appropriate policy for the constituents in the ARIN region.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannigan, Martin [mailto:marty at akamai.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:28 PM
> To: Bill Darte; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results -
> October 2010
> On 10/13/10 3:12 PM, "Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> [ snip ]
> > In answer to your further inquiry about the modifications suggested
> > from the floor. I don't recall that there was a really clear
> > statement or wording change, but I take responsibility for
> not being
> > able to formulate the correct and acceptable language in my
> motion to
> > send the Draft Policy to last call.
> If I believed that the AC should act as individuals vs. a
> collective, I'd accept that. It demonstrates that the AC
> might not be firing on all cylinder from my perspective.
> There were two suggestions made from the floor and an
> encouragement to make the modifications to include "various
> registries" as excepted to address Geoff Hustons hypothetical
> > Legitimate questions arose about the language and meaning and the
> > ensuing effort failed to reach clear, simple appropriate language
> > which all policies deserve.
> What were those questions? It's not unfair to ask the AC to
> legitimize the tabling of this proposal all considered.
> Best Regards,