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

Bill Darte BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Thu Nov 10 21:39:30 EST 2011


Yes, indeed.  This dialog needs to move to substantive discussion of the
merits of the DP not the PDP.
 
Bill Darte
 
NOTE: I am retiring from the University and  want to continue to get
your messages.
PLEASE USE: My new  email address for ALL future correspondence
beginning NOW....Thanks!
 
billdarte at gmail.com
 


________________________________

	From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:08 PM
	To: Bill Darte
	Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Bill Sandiford; Robert Seastrom
	Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning
changed?
	
	

	

	Bill, 

	Time to move on. 

	Best, 

	Marty

	On Nov 10, 2011 4:49 PM, "Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu>
wrote:
	

		

		So, OK....again you speak to the 'broken process'...and
you say there is a King James re-write...
		Show me where the 'major' edits are....I call them
tweaks and re-wording.
		bd
		
		
		-----Original Message-----
		From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com]
		Sent: Thu 11/10/2011 11:10 AM
		To: Bill Darte
		Cc: Bill Sandiford; Robert Seastrom; arin-ppml at arin.net
		Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning
changed?
		
		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_trans
cript.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.
		
		

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111110/77774f45/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list