[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers - Shepherd's Inquiry

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:


>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:04


>>> Section 4.3 of the PDP implies that last call is a state of consensus.
>>> I think we're  far from that to be considering rushing things like
>>> Owen, or anyone, is proposing.

[ clip ]


> Frankly, I'm fine if the community wants to abandon all inter-RIR
> transfer policies, but, that is not the sense I have of what the community
> wanted from the San Juan meeting and the few voices of dissent in
> the current thread today were a few voices of dissent around that time as
> well. I have no reason to believe that the majority of the community
> members who expressed strong favor for this policy with a few minor
> issues addressed have changed their minds. Do you?

As I mentioned below, if you'd like to argue why there is consensus to
do anything but hold this for Philadelphia, I'd be interested in
hearing it. What you are saying above though is that you are defining
consensus on a per modification basis with a lack of interest
supporting previous parties comments. I'm not sure that it is in our
interest to have such a loose interpretation of how to get to what the
community wants to input to the AC.

>>> Section 4.3 of the PDP implies that last call is a state of consensus.

[ clip ]

> That is certainly your right. Personally, I think that you are ignoring the
> historical context of the policy from the period leading up to and
> including the San Juan meeting. Since then, the AC has struggled


You mean a previous version of the proposal?


> with this policy and failed to achieve consensus on the exact
> changes needed, but, there was strong and clear community
> consensus to move something along these lines forward at the
> San Juan meeting and on the list prior to the meeting.

I disagree. This policy has been on the border of collapse since it
began being word smithed.


> However, let's discuss the issues as they stand and not engage in
> personal attacks on PPML.


I think that these are important and serious issues. Opposing your
viewpoints are far from personal attacks.

Best,

-M<