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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:42 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> We can agree to disagree. The participants comment asked for
>> clarification and called them "much different" and the Chair agreed.
>> The intent of the room was from the collegiate definition of the word,
>> not the ARIN definitions, which are typically vague at best. :-)
>>
>> That we're down to viewing video and arguing about tonal inflections
>> is problematic in itself.
>
>
> However, it is quite clear that question called for the draft policy
> (after corrections) to be sent to last call.  Furthermore, the AC has

Actually, it is not, but you're unwilling to view it any other way so
continued debate is pointless. We can move on.

[ clip ]

> This is why it does not matter if the community meant "correct the
> policy only by making adjustments" or not, as the AC has ability to
> rewrite draft policy text (with the protection noted above) if they
> feel it will improve the result.  You may not be aware of the policy
> development process, but it has indeed been followed correctly.

Section 3 of the PDP counters this claim as you appear to intend it to
be absolute and sets the intent clearly and doesn't seem to imply at
all that the AC is an independent body above and superior to the
community. Getting elected to the AC doesn't require much more than a
few well placed connections and suggesting that the AC in an absolute
manner, like a cabal or a cartel, would be very much contrary to the
communities wishes. As I have said before,

I'll continue to agree to disagree. And for as long as you would like
me too. :-)


>
> In this phase, the community provides feedback regarding the changes
> made after the Public Policy Meeting. If you have any feedback on the
> changes or improvements to the policy language, you should send to
> such to PPML list.  To date, you have provided no feedback on the
> draft policy as revised, so it is difficult to determine what aspects
> (if any) of the revised policy language you object to.


My contribution with respect to the failed process is as valid as
yours and contributory overall. I also have clearly stated my position
at the policy meeting as neutral and then later in the thread as
opposed. I believe we are creating that vacuum that business is
worried about and fueling the failure of the Internet or at least the
failure of the few who will not be able to gain access on a level
playing field with the rest of us.

I also saw your suggestion with respect to the additional commentary
on the ARIN PDP. My suggestion for the PDP is in-line with William
Herrin's suggestion.

Best,

-M<