[arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Last Call

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The changes that occur to a draft policy text after presentation
>>> at the public policy meeting can be quite extensive and include
>>> any action including rewriting, merging, or abandoning. I believe
>>> that you are seeing the result of a "rewrite" of the draft policy,
>>> and this is noted as specifically allowed by the PDP for policies
>>> after PPM, with the protection being that any change results in
>>> another last call to the community.
>>
>> Is this John Curran's opinion or is this the President of ARIN's
>> ruling on the process question as it relates to draft 2011-1?
>
> It is the President's ruling on your process question.
>
>>> Note also that you do have the option to petition for the original
>>> policy text to be sent to last call, if you do not like the action
>>> taken by the ARIN AC on the draft policy.
>>
>> The original text has all of the faults that have been attributed to
>> it in this thread. It was not expressed in clear, actionable policy
>> language and was indubitably in need of editing. The last thing I want
>> to do is petition for that text to be sent to last call.
>
> If that is the case, then I would suggest that you provide
> suggested changes that would improve the draft policy text.
>


Bill,

I agree with you, the process has failed at least from an integrity
perspective.  The last call text presented in this thread should not
be allowed to propagate under the cover of community blessing. What
was presented in Philadelphia was this:

      https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/thursday/darte_2011_1.pdf

Slide 8 is the basis that is being used to claim that the community
has empowered the AC. The last call text was neither publicly
presented or polled in the public policy meeting. A completely
different and unrelated question was asked that had very narrow
consensus. There is no mandate to proceed as some have claimed.

The last call text presented in this thread was primarily written
during the AC meeting. Even if it isn't formally in violation of the
PDP, it's poorly thought out, ill defined shotgun policy that didn't
need to be written and rushed through in the manner that is has been.
No-one on the AC is able to clearly articulate why this was necessary.
Including myself. The AC meeting minutes will paint an even  messier
picture supporting my contention.

A successful petition would continue to emphasize that we expect that
ARIN will implement critical, business impacting policy in an open,
transparent and fair way. I would certainly consider supporting one.

I certainly appreciate the hard work of my colleagues.

Best,

-M<