[arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18, 2009

[Bill Darte]

As the presenter of 2008-6 in LA and author of the original version of
the proposal.

I can say definitively that the proposal expected that the Board of
Trustees of ARIN would exercise their judgement over the criticality of
shortage of v4 addresses in the future which would impact the ability of
ARIN to continue business as usual.  They would then implement the
policy (if it hadn't been updated or obsoleted by other policy or
circumstance) and begin to accept enduser transfers that met current
ARIN need requirements.  The word emergency was place in the title and
explained by stating the policy's intent to provide a short term
response to a shortage of v4 addresses before v6 was sufficently viable
or well established to meet most everyone's needs. 

Bill Darte
ARIN Advisory Council

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:04 PM
> To: 'William Herrin'; Lee Howard
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 
> and Mar 18,2009
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 
> > I'm not aware of of any text in 2008-6 which required or even 
> > recommended that the board declare an emergency in order to 
> activate 
> > it. My understanding of 2008-6 was that it was to be active upon 
> > finding of consensus and ratification by the board. The word 
> > "emergency" in the title was a no-op; it's presence in a proposal 
> > title has no defined meaning within the published PDP. It only 
> > reflected the author's view that creating a transfer policy was 
> > important.
> 
> So you are claiming that a policy that had the word 
> "emergency" in the title both 1. had broad consensus and 2. 
> represented no agreement that anything approximating an 
> emergency was involved. 
> 
> interesting interpretation. 
> 
> > I supported 2008-6. I disapproved of the use of the word "emergency"
> > in the title and would have opposed the policy had I 
> believed the word 
> > to be anything more than a no-op. I doubt I'm the only one in this 
> > position.
> 
> apparently all those others, like you, failed to make this 
> clear in the discussion of the policy 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>