[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?

[Owen DeLong]

On Dec 1, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 11/30/10 6:41 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/30/10 15:54 CST, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/10 2:09 PM, "David Farmer"<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>>>>> On 11/30/10 09:44 CST, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>>>>> ...
> 
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
>> 
>> But, on the other side what do you perceive the harm would be to of
>> allowing 4.10 to be implemented as it is?  Or, will be if we fail to
>> come to a consensus to fix it.
> 
> What's the harm in not calling an ambulance for a heart attack victim
> because no-one can agree which ambulance service to call?
> 
Ah, the joys of FUD. I don't think you even have agreement that the
patient is diaphoretic, let alone suffering chest pain, an impaired
pulse, blood pressure abnormalities, or any of the other key
symptoms of a heart attack.

We can probably all agree that the patient is not in perfect health,
but, the current state is somewhere between a case of the sniffles
and a stroke, depending on your point of view.

An equally important question is what is the harm in calling an
ambulance for a case of the sniffles. The answer is that it prevents
the ambulance from responding to the heart attack down the
street, _AND_ it is expensive for the person with the sniffles.

> 
> [ clip ]
> 
> 
>> I would like to see a clear and significant (more than just the usual
>> suspects) consensus that the community both supports these policies and
>> more importantly that the community supports the use of the emergency
>> policy process regarding these policies.  It needs to be clear to any
>> third-party who reviews PPML at some future date, maybe as few as a
>> couple months from now what the communities consensus was.
> 
> 
> The sound of crickets on ppml should not be the sound of inaction by the AC.

Ah, something we can actually agree on. (sort of)

> Many policies are met with crickets on PPML and pass resoundingly at the
> policy meeting. If the AC is going to be followers then I suggest that you
> all stop writing and pushing your own proposals.
> 
And I will be very interested to see what level of support these proposals
receive at the meeting.

Refusing to take emergency action without a clear need or a mandate
from the community is not followship. It's prudent leadership. The AC
is not a dictatorial body. We are a collection of subject matter experts
that have a clear mandate to include community consensus as an
aspect of our decisions to enact policy. For a policy that isn't being
discussed in any public forum other than PPML, the sound of
crickets on PPML establishes a lack of consensus.

As to whether the AC should be writing policies, I think you are
sadly misguided there. In my experience, we don't simply push
policies based on our own perceptions or needs. We spend a
great deal of time talking to community members and soliciting
information from them on areas where current policy is proving
to be problematic, then we write proposals to correct those
issues.

Owen