[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Revised Assessment

[John Curran]

On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

>> As called by the Chair, the poll was "making such corrections as may
>> be necessary".  I agree that the intent of the poll was characterized
>> earlier as advancing to last call with "tweaks" or "minor changes"; it
>> is left to each community member to consider whether making changes to
>> the text for clarification purposes (as opposed to policy substance)
>> was included in the guidance provided to the ARIN AC.
> 
> I reviewed the video of the session this afternoon to clarify. The
> question asked and polled was specifically "do we favor it being put
> to last call with the advisory council making language tweaks".
> Additionally, a participant stood up and clearly asked the meeting
> Chair to clarify the question on a wider scale, if we were approving a
> rewrite and that a rewrite was totally different than what was being
> asked. The meeting Chair opted to keep the focus on language tweaks
> and not restate the question. The recording is painfully clear with
> respect to intent. Tweaks, not rewrite.

Martin - 
 
  Yes, I also reviewed the video, and hence my remark about the
  scope of what was recommended being a judgement of each member
  of the community.  Your characterization above is incorrect,
  as the definition of what constitutes a tweak was left open
  intentionally, and furthermore because the motion language
  was language provided by Owen Delong and simply indicated
  correcting the draft policy and moving it to last call.

  Regarding "tweaks", you point out that participant stood up 
  and said the value of "tweaks" was a little undefined.  You
  failed mention that Chair found this to be an acceptable state 
  and replied  "Yes, I understand the value of tweaks is less 
  than perfectly defined."  Given a chance to specifically 
  restrict define the scope of "tweaks", this was not done.

  Furthermore, the Chair did not restate the question because he 
  had already had Owen repeat his phrasing of the question, to wit:

  "Does the community support the Advisory Council correcting this 
   and moving it to last call versus does the community feel that 
   it needs major changes and another trip to a meeting."

  The Chair then said: "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. "

  Those supporting the question were supporting the language that 
  Owen repeated, specifically "the Advisory Council correcting 
  it and moving it to last call" which was the language referenced 
  by the Chair.  It is quite possible that some community members 
  were confused in this process, but the question asked definitely
  included the AC making changes (of scope undefined) and putting 
  the result to last call.  

  You may disapprove of the AC correcting the issues in the draft 
  policy by means of a rewrite, but it is certainly within the AC's
  ability to do so, and furthermore not contrary to the direction
  of "correcting it and moving it to last call" given in the PPM.

  To the extent that there's some policy aspects of the rewrite 
  that go beyond addressing the issues raised in the PPM, it is
  important that they be called out to the community during this
  last call period.  So far, it is not apparent that the revised
  draft policy is materially different from version presented at 
  PPM (with appropriate corrections for the issues discussed.)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN