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

[Owen DeLong]

On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:54 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> 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.
> 
Bill,

In what way does the proposed language change the effect of 8.3 on
in-region transfers? I simply don't see it and I see no reason to expect
that the NPRM-ification of the prior language would somehow not
have modified 8.3 rather than becoming a separate policy section.
In fact, even if it had become its own policy section, it's hard to see
how that would have happened without also modifying 8.3 or
developing even greater inconsistencies.

> 
> 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.
> 

This topic was discussed in detail at the meeting and I find it hard to
believe that anyone in the room interpreted it that way after it was
presented. There were no comments to this effect made during the
discussion of the policy and the intent to apply receiving RIR policy
to the recipient and providing RIR policy to the provider were, IMHO,
quite clear in the discussion. I believe this was also discussed on the
mailing list prior to the meeting, but, I don't have the reference handy
and don't have time to dig for it at the moment.
> 
> 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.
> 

I don't believe that it is valid to characterize either of these as radical
change, but, you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Owen