[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2010

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 10/13/2010 1:33 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/13/10 3:36 PM, "Sweeting, John"<john.sweeting at twcable.com>  wrote:
>
>> Marty,
>>
>> Thanks for the opportunity to respond:
>>
>> The main issue is that the official label for those addresses is legacy
>> addresses but not all legacy addresses are wrapped up in that particular
>> issue. Since we became aware that the issue surrounding these particular
>> addresses should/would/will be cleared up in the next 10 days or so and given
>> the struggle that we had trying to find language that would work we decided as
>> a body to table the motion to send it to last call. This will be dealt with on
>> our very next AC call which is scheduled for November 18th.
>
>
> John,
>
> I'm not challenging anything other than the fact that the AC opted to table
> something that they had strong direction to work on. It's fair for us to ask
> for the AC to legitimize a decision especially when there is clear
> consensus.
>
> With regards to the global proposal, you both (Bill and you) have now said
> that Geoff's hypothetical issues will be moot in a few days. This proposal
> is nowhere near adoption or implementation and won't be within ten days. It
> will likely take six months or more if it is even adopted globally. I think
> that issue is a non-issue unless there's something that don't know that
> didn't come out in the list or meeting discussion.
>
> That leaves Owens reading of some language which had identified as unclear
> and we asserted that he was in error. Still, we suggested some text to
> clarify and since it's only an edit related to clarity and not context it
> could also be easily dealt with by the ASO AC at the end of the cycle and in
> compliance with their PDP as well as all of the other regions.
>
> This proposal is on the agenda of three other RIR forums at the moment.
> LACNIC next week, Rome after that and AfriNIC following that. Making a major
> modification at this point is a problem as was demonstrated with 2009-06,
> and holding it up for a non context impacting clarity concern doesn't seem
> reasonable all considered.
>

I have to disagree.  Another month isn't going to harm a good proposal.

When I first proposed the WHOIS POC e-mail cleanup in Aug 2008 that 
eventually morphed into section 3.6.1 of the NRPM, it took almost a 
year, and the proposal was merged into two other subsequent proposals
that came out because of my proposal.  See:

http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-November/012721.html

linked under

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_7.html

And even after it was adopted almost a year later in 2009 it
still took 6-8 months for it to even be implemented by ARIN
staff (and as far as we know it's still being implemented)

So I don't buy the idea that any one proposal is so all fired
important that it must be fast-tracked ONE MONTH.

Pushing to fast track it is an insult to everyone else who has
submitted proposals and patiently waited for the slow grind
of the ARIN bureaucracy even when it was DRIVING THEM INSANE!

My advice is sit back, relax and be reminded of the immortal words
of Douglas Adams:

"...Vogons are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not 
actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. 
They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the 
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, 
sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, 
lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and 
recycled as firelighters...."

Once you understand that the policy process is run by Vogons it
will all become clear!!!   ;-)

Ted