ARIN-PPML Message

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

On Jun 21, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> [ .. ]
>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:04 PM
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> There's less than 48 hours to the Thursday AC meeting. Making
>> modifications to rush things to last call is challenging based on the
>> public feedback that we have and the large dissent noted in the latest
>> AC minutes regardless of the reasoning.
>> 
>> Submit edits prior to the Thursday meeting leaves me wondering how
>> everyone will be able to review, think, discuss and then vote on them
>> with so little time available to consider.
>> 
>> Section 4.3 of the PDP implies that last call is a state of consensus.
>> I think we're  far from that to be considering rushing things like
>> Owen, or anyone, is proposing.
>> 
> 
> 
> Since Owen is already working the AC to try and rush this through
> privately, let me clarify; these changes are posted to PPML less than
> 48 hours which doesn't seem like an adequate amount of time to
> address. It also seems clear that some advocates are willing to do
> _anything_ to get this through including shifting their opinion and
> ignoring the feedback on this list. That alone should be enough to
> stall this for a bit and to answer the significant unanswered
> questions.
> 

I don't think that is a fair characterization of my actions, Marty. All I have
done is express to the AC that I felt that language that was proposed
to the AC should be brought to last call. That language was posted to
the AC list over a week ago.

Frankly, I'm fine if the community wants to abandon all inter-RIR
transfer policies, but, that is not the sense I have of what the community
wanted from the San Juan meeting and the few voices of dissent in
the current thread today were a few voices of dissent around that time as
well. I have no reason to believe that the majority of the community
members who expressed strong favor for this policy with a few minor
issues addressed have changed their minds. Do you?


>> Section 4.3 of the PDP implies that last call is a state of consensus.
> 
> I'm still very curious and wouldn't mind seeing Bill or Owen explain
> how we've reached anything near consensus. Unless there's a dramatic
> shift in the attitude of posters to this thread, I'm planning on
> suggesting that the AC postpone until a later date.
> 

That is certainly your right. Personally, I think that you are ignoring the
historical context of the policy from the period leading up to and
including the San Juan meeting. Since then, the AC has struggled
with this policy and failed to achieve consensus on the exact
changes needed, but, there was strong and clear community
consensus to move something along these lines forward at the
San Juan meeting and on the list prior to the meeting.

However, let's discuss the issues as they stand and not engage in
personal attacks on PPML.

Owen