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

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Earlier I asked persons objecting to the last call language to provide
> specifics about how the newly crafted language of 2011-1 varies from the
> objectives and intent of the flawed language of 2011-1 presented in
> Philadelphia. I did not get any explicit answers.

Bill,

I thought I shouted some explicit answers loudly enough but I'll be
pleased to repeat two of the most significant ones:

1. The community did not intend to alter the in-region transfer
policies with proposal 2011-1. That desire began and ended with drafts
2011-8 and 2011-10, in which the debate showed such contention that
the AC should have been well aware of the community's desire NOT to
make sweeping changes to section 8.3.

Altering the existing section 8.3 was entirely the AC's invention at
the suggestion not of the community at large but of ARIN staff. Top
down. This was inconsistent with the PPM draft which would,
presumably, have become its own policy section governing only
inter-region transfers.


2. The draft presented at the meeting required the parties to "meet
both RIR's policies." The current draft guts that requirement,
demanding each party meet only one part of one RIR's requirements. The
PPM draft was vague. You might have understood it to intend what the
revision offered. But some portion, possibly a majority of the
community understood it differently and based their consent on the
requirement that folks receiving addresses from ARIN meet at least as
stringent policy requirements regardless of which region they're in.


Perhaps you disagree with either or both of these points.
Nevertheless, you will find that they are as explicit answers to your
question as the radical change in draft language permits.


> We keep hearing about the differences in current (last call)language of
> DP 2011-1 from that presented at the Philadelphia PPM.  And, how that
> change took place just hours after the PPM meeting and just hours before
> the AC meeting, and again IN the AC meeting.  That is all very
> true....and true to the mission of the AC in supporting community policy
> development.

That last statement is false. Had you left out the words "supporting
community" it might have accurately reflected the board's directive
that the AC develop number policy. However, _community_ policy is
developed bottom-up. The sum of the AC's behavior post-PPM was
anything but and you've been excoriated for it by a number of folks
including both current and previous AC members.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004