[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - February 2012

[Joe Maimon]

ARIN wrote:
>
>
> Regarding proposal 163, the AC stated, "Based on a lack of significant
> support or extenuating circumstances that would require the creation of
> a specially designated class of v4 address space within the ARIN region,
> the AC chose to abandon proposal 163. Without a compelling inequity
> present, it's difficult to make a case for carve-outs of any kind other
> than for critical infrastructure. The community has underscored this
> with significant expressions of support for fewer v4 initiatives and
> more focus on transition."

To the drafter of this language, and to those who affirmed it.

To the AC as the unified body we have been told to consider it as.

You have outstripped your mandate, again. Your reasoning and conclusions 
are convoluted, arbitrary and fabricated, biased in support of your own 
opinions, desires and agendas.

You are ignoring the existence of THREE "specially designated class of 
v4 addresses", current and pending, lobbied hard for by members AC.

You have arbitrarily moved the bar of community support, which you have 
grudgingly acknowledged exists even while dismissing it as not 
"significant" enough.

You have arbitrarily decided that the community is not interested in "v4 
initiatives", unless of course, its a policy advanced by a member of the 
in club - or a policy designed to deplete IPv4 quicker.

It was not that long ago that your first disgraceful attempt at 
dictating to the community what policies would be acceptable was made.

You have arbitrarily decided upon what set of circumstances you would be 
convinced that this policy merits community wide consideration and you 
have arbitrarily pronounced (mis)judgement on those circumstances, in 
the teeth of simple and stark numbers and facts.

What have you left over for the community you claim to represent?

You no longer speak for the larger community. You have been seduced into 
redefining the community to encompass only yourselves and those who 
agree with you.

You have successfully and repetitively acted in a manner that stifles 
debate and frustrates participants.

I do not consider your behavior congruent with your job description.


> And regarding proposal 164, the AC said, "Due to a lack of support and
> strong opposition among the community on PPML, the AC abandoned proposal
> 164."


Yes there was lack of stated support. However there can still be 
interest in wider discussion. Which is part of the AC's job to determine.

Where are they now, the community members who want transition to be as 
quick and as painful as possible? Who claim that the unpredictability of 
exhaustion and the continue availability of IPv4 hampers IPv6 uptake? 
Who advocate liaises-fair or worse, expressing the opinion that the 
faster IPv4 is dead by way of RiR exhaustion, the better?

Can you not stand behind your own ideals and objectives when it is laid 
out in black and white, in a policy proposal?

I wish for you to have the opportunity to speak now or (hopefully) 
remain silent until after transition.

I will appeal both these decisions, petitioning any and all members of 
the community (and that includes AC members too) for their support.

Whether you believe either of these proposals are worthy of 
consideration in their own merit, or whether you believe the AC has not 
acted in the manner you want to hold them to, I request and welcome your 
support for petition of these abandonment decisions.

Best,

Joe