[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2011

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Feb 4 00:32:07 EST 2011

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:18 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:31 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> Yes, but the current policy (2009-8) activated today with IANA exhaustion,
>> it would have taken emergency action to prevent that.  Or are you suggestion
>> we should go down to three months, back to twelve months, and then back down
>> to three months again?  Honestly, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
> David,
> That might have been a good reason for bouncing it. But "there isn't
> time" is  disingenuous. There's always time.
Bill, the AC said there was insufficient time for the normal policy process to bring said proposal to fruition before it was rendered moot. Since the normal policy process requires 
Resonation at a public policy meeting (next one in April) and the proposal was rendered moot in February, I think it was an accurate statement of the facts of the situation. I fail to see how there "is always time".

> It sets me off when a member of the AC (or the AC as a whole)
> announces that there isn't time for something. Not enough time to get
> this through the process. Too many proposals, not enough time to work
> on this one. Call it a pet peeve.
> Many of you are past your first terms. If you couldn't figure out how
> to make time, you shouldn't have run for reelection. You know: lead,
> follow or ::get out of the way::. Those of you past your first terms
> did run for reelection. So now it's just a wussy excuse.
It was not a matter of how much time we had. It had to do with external events overtaking then(glacial) speed of the ARIN policy process. Yes, this policy could have been addresses as an emergency by the board. The AC does not have the ability to invoke the emergency process. There did not appear to be significant support in the community to do so.

I think the AC acted appropriately in the best interests of the community and made an accurate determination of the situation based on the data available at the time.

> This is part of another irritant for me as well: I find the brusque
> way the AC disposes of proposals it decides to abandon to be
> disrespectful to their authors. A proposal author has spent  hours
> behind the scenes carefully crafting language, researching process and
> writing justification. When you make the decision instead of leaving
> it to consensus, simple courtesy demands at least a paragraph from
> each of you explaining why the proposal wasn't good enough.
I believe the author in this case received an adequate and courteous explanation. The author participated in the deliberations of the proposal.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list