[arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?

[Owen DeLong]

So we have 24:17 in favor of "moving it to last call with those corrections as
may be necessary." To me, that seems like a good indication that the community
wanted it moved to last call with such corrections as may be necessary.

IMHO, this is not a "King James" rewrite. Most of the text remains the same or very similar. It moves around a little, but, that would have been done by staff to NRPM-ize it had we passed the text from the meeting and it would have been done without community input and in a much less defined manner.

IMHO, this represents a relatively minimal rewording by using a restructuring instead to convey the intended meaning which I believe was clearly communicated by the community on the PPML and at the meeting.

If there were not urgent need for this policy, I would probably agree that running it through another meeting cycle for the sake of more complete community review would be worth while. However, there is urgent need for this policy and everyone at the meeting is able to participate on PPML if they choose to do so. Everyone at the meeting knows that this was likely to get modified and sent to last call from the vote that was taken at the meeting. Between that and the extended last call, postings to NANOG by the ARIN CEO bringing the issue up there, etc. I believe that the community has had ample opportunity to comment on the revised text.

We have a statement from the ARIN CEO that the changes made to the text prior to sending it to last call were appropriate and within the scope of the PDP. If you want to change the PDP, there are mechanisms for doing so. This isn't one of them.

Further, even if the AC sends this to the board next Wednesday, the board will review it for PDP compliance and will not ratify it if they feel that the PDP was not followed.

Continuing to try and distract from a discussion of the merits (or lack) of the current text in favor of focusing on the process is disingenuous at best.

Owen


Sent from my iPad

On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>> All,
>> 
> 
> [ clip ]
> 
>> 
>> What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
>> but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
>> calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.
> 
> 
> The record speaks for itself and disagrees.It's a good time to stop
> distracting the discussion and simply agree that the process was
> broken and get on with it. We agreed to move to last call with
> "tweaks". Not with a King James version rewrite.
> 
> Vint summarized it best:
> 
> Vint Cerf:  "The reason I'm raising this as an issue, Mr. Chairman, is
> I'm concerned that the only way that the Advisory Council could
> continue to work on it is if we all voted to — in favor of this with
> some tweaks, because the value of tweak is a little undefined.  That's
> what I'm concerned about. "
> 
>> From the transcripts:
> 
>    https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_12
> 
> [ from where we start to form "the question" ]
> 
> Tim Denton:  Okay.  So we have heard the language from Mr. DeLong.  Do
> we favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks.
> 
> The proposition is now going to be put to the house.  Do we favor it
> being put to last call with the Advisory Council making language
> tweaks. Please signify your ascent if you agree. You can put your
> hands down.
> 
> Those against the Advisory Council putting the proposition to last
> call even with tweaks.  Those against the Advisory Council putting
> this to last call.
> 
> Unidentified Speaker:  A question of clarification. Based on what Owen
> had said, I thought we were going to be voting on whether or not this
> got kicked back for complete rework, not voting against it going back
> with tweaks.  They're different somehow.
> 
> Bill Darte:  If it were to go to last call, then it would be in
> another cycle of work.
> 
> Unidentified Speaker:  That's not necessarily true.
> 
> Tim Denton:  Just a second.  Can we just have — no.  I don't want
> anything further.  We're reaching the stages of lack of clarity.
> 
> Now, is the vote — has the vote been taken?  All right.
> 
> 2011-1:  ARIN Inter-regional Transfers.  Those in the room voting and
> by remote, 124.  Those who are moving it to last call and making such
> corrections as may be necessary, those in favor of the proposition
> were 24; those against were 17.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.