[arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104

[Sweeting, John]

Hi Bill,

I just want to share some of the information that was not provided in the explanation posted but was discussed at the AC's meeting and will be part of the minutes. The first motion was to Accept Proposal 103 on the docket. After much discussion it was voted down 5 For, 7 Against, 1 Abstention (there were 2 AC members absent). The main reasoning was that by putting it on the docket with the intention of major revisions, the AC was aborting the author's (and community's) right to petition. The second motion was to Abandon which carried unanimously. As the Chair I asked the 2 shepherds, David Farmer and Scott Leibrand, to please contact you, the author, and explain why the AC voted to abandon your proposal at this time. Another AC member requested that the 2 shepherds continue to work with the author to come up with a workable proposal and it was stated that they would.  David and/or Scott should be working with you (and others) to try and work out the flaws. I have seen a lot of back and forth on this list so it seems to be what is happening. We, the AC, have no intentions of dropping this and I just wanted to state that on this list.

Thanks and Happy Holidays,
John


On 12/23/09 1:08 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> There seems to be a myth that policy ideas cannot be discussed
> without a proposal on the table.  I have no idea where that idea
> originated, but it is demonstratibly false.  For instance, every
> face to face meeting has the "Open Policy Hour" specifically to
> discuss things not on the table.  PPML archives are filled with
> discussions that either never resulted in policy, or were discussed
> without a proposal for months or years before a proposal was put
> forward.
>
> What having a proposal does is put requirements on the discussion.
> Timelines.  Presentations at meetings.  These can be useful, but
> also in the early days of a proposal can be harmful; rather than
> letting the idea develop and turn into something good it is shoehorned
> into a timeline.

Leo,

Disruptive proposals serve an intrinsic purpose simply by existing and
demanding attention.

Six months ago you killed proposal 92 on the basis that you wanted
more time to consider small changes which might fix IPv6 policy's
severe dysfunction. Without pressure from an active proposal, what
have you accomplished with that time?


> As for this particular proposal, it appeared to me it was not ripe.
> Long proposals almost never pass, and not only is this one long but
> it touches on many different areas.  I believe in its current form
> it has no chance of passing, as the details need to be refined,
> simplified, and folks brought on board before there is a reason to
> have a formal proposal.

You've couched it better than Owen but you've basically said the same
thing: the community won't want this, so why bother bringing it to the
point where you ask them? The problem with that theory is two-fold:

1. Small changes are good but when small changes don't get the job
done it's time to consider big changes.

2. The response 103 got on the PPML was heavily weighted towards the
positive and comparable to other eventually-successful proposals in
that phase of the process. YOU COULD BE MISTAKEN. The only way to know
for sure is to take it to the meeting and ask.

In the end you could be right. It could well go down in flames during
the consensus call at the meeting. But even that serves a valuable
purpose.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.