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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Oct 20 11:26:08 EDT 2011


I don't think anyone is circling wagons or attempting to crush dissent.

I don't think we are trying to control anything.

I think everyone on the AC is attempting to make a good faith effort to do right by the community with a difficult situation.

I welcome Bill H's expression of his concerns about how we arrived at the current point. Though I don't agree with him, I think this kind of feedback for the community is important.

I think that, faced with the circumstances that existed and the input we received from the community, we did the best we could with the tools we have. I believe everyone has acted with integrity and within the defined PDP. I also think that your claim that the process has failed from an integrity perspective is baseless. So long as we can get (and incorporate) good feedback on the current text from the community in this last call, things are working as intended.

I honestly don't know whether this text should advance or go back to a PPM or get revised and go for another last call. I look forward to seeing how the community at large feels on the subject.

What I do know is that we went to the Philadelphia meeting with policy text that was poorly formulated, ambiguous at best, and would have required extensive creativity to integrate into the NRPM. Now we have much better text that seems to incorporate the feedback from the community both in the meeting and on the list before the meeting. It seems to have addressed the concerns raised by staff.

I do find it interesting that instead of discussing the policy and working to develop better text (if you object to the current text), you have chosen to focus on criticizing the manner in which the text was delivered while simultaneously criticizing the focus on such meta-issues vs. working on the actual development of policy.


Sent from my iPad

On Oct 20, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Marty -
> [ snip Owen ]
> [ snip John ]
> [ snip CJ ]
> [ snip Sweeting ]
> ARIN has a history of circling the wagons after it is unable to
> prevent public dissent. Generally, a "first strike" mentality exists
> whenever the organizations credibility or integrity of it's process is
> challenged. It's unfortunate that we spend so much time controlling
> and so little time working on good policy that makes sense. Right now,
> transition is failing as a result of ARIN over-controlling policy that
> is related to v4 transfer.
> Not much more I can say on the topic. I would like to again thank my
> colleagues for their hard work.
> Best,
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list