ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers - Shepherd's Inquiry

Owen,
Others on the AC would be interested as I am I'm sure in seeing the
tweaks you propose and or course you are welcome to make a motion to
send that new text to last call.
My current effort is an attempt to air the issues once again in a
focused way so that if a motion like yours fails to achieve 8 votes in
the AC, we have a contingency plan.
I support your effort.
bd 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:04 PM
> To: Martin Hannigan
> Cc: Bill Darte; arin ppml; Robert E. Seastrom
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR 
> Transfers - Shepherd's Inquiry
> 
> >> 
> >> The simple answere to your question is that many of the NO 
> votes for forwarding to last call were based upon 'clarity' 
> issues not on the overall sentiment of the community as 
> voiced on the PPML and at the Puerto Rico Public Policy 
> Meeting.  I am pursuing that clarity and incoporating other 
> feedback from PR PPM and the AC meeting where the votes you 
> identify were taken.
> >> 
> >> I will also consider the questions you pose above as part 
> of my shepherd's duty.  I'm sure the rest of community will 
> also incorporate those considerations.
> >> 
> > 
> > I guess I'm not clear on what the consensus looks like at 
> this point 
> > since I'm under the impression that there is a significant lack of 
> > support community wise.
> > 
> > But fair enough. Considering the lack of support overall 
> though, I'd 
> > strongly suggest abandonment as a serious issue for continued AC 
> > discussion.
> > 
> 
> I think there was strong community support for 2001-1 as it 
> was written at the Puerto Rico meeting.
> 
> I think there was widespread belief that the language needed 
> clarification in a couple of areas and someone was hung up on 
> trying to deprecate RFC-2050 for reasons passing understanding.
> 
> Now we've got an entirely different proposal on the table 
> from Bill, but, it at least appears to preserve all the same 
> intent. As such, I can get on board with bringing that 
> modification to Philly as a new draft policy for further 
> community discussion towards adoption.
> 
> Alternatively, there were very minor issues with the original 
> 2011-1 that we had some simple language tweaks to address. I 
> have expressed support for those and would favor bringing 
> that language to a vote for forwarding to last call at our 
> meeting on Thursday.
> 
> I won't pretend to speak for the rest of the AC, but, I do 
> not feel that abandonment is appropriate given the strong 
> community support for the proposal before we started mucking 
> with it after the PR meeting. We owe it to the community to 
> find a way to come to agreement on the changes suggested by 
> the community and bring the result either to last call or to 
> the next PPM at the very least.
> 
> Owen
> 
>