[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6 (was Re: More on Kremen/Cohen)

Thus spake "bill fumerola" <billf at powerset.com>
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 11:24:12AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> So, did counsel ever comment on any past "shoot spammers
>> dead on sight" proposals?  There had to have been at least one! :-)
>
> while counsel hasn't, the ARIN staff[1] and AC[2] have shot down a
> proposal - dead on sight - that changes the size of minimum allocation,
> using spammers as a scapegoat.
>
> that's not quite the same thing, though.

The AC accepted the proposal, staff commented on it as they do every 
accepted proposal, and it was debated at the next meeting.  It was not "shot 
down".

I wasn't in attendance, but I was watching the live stream, and it appeared 
to me that the comments by staff substantively influenced the consensus at 
the last minute, i.e. a number of people that had intended to support it 
found themselves opposing it.  The AC correctly determined that there was no 
remaining consensus in favor of the proposal (as opposed to a consensus 
against it), and didn't recommend it to the BoT for adoption.

This is all within the defined process, and IMHO is exactly why we ask staff 
to comment on proposals.  The attendees could have ignored staff's comments 
if they didn't find them credible.  If so, and the BoT found that the 
problem was significant enough, they could have refused to implement it. 
Neither happened.  It was the attendees, not the AC or staff, that ended up 
shooting 2007-6 down.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov