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

[Sweeting, John]

On 2/23/12 9:05 AM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>I was the primary author, the AC participated in its editing and then
>voted on it.


Just a point of clarification as the Chair of the AC: We normally ask the
Primary Shepherd to draft the wording to explain why we take certain
actions, since the Primary Shepherd is the one with the intimate knowledge
of the proposal and normally is the one that recommends what actions we
take. In this case as Marty has indicated he was the Primary Shepherd and
had that responsibility. There were 2 AC members that voiced displeasure
to me with the wording but in keeping with the openness the AC would like
to maintain I allowed the wording suggested by Marty, with some tweaks
from Chris Grundeman incorporated to be used. As the Chair I do have veto
power over the wording but very seldom use it as I think it is important
for the shepherd's to be able to make that communication to the community
as well as the originator. Also we normally try to let the originator know
ahead of the formal announcement but that is not always possible.

>
>>
>> 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.
>
>Not. I agree, the /10 for cable operators should have never been set
>aside so you can't really lump everyone into that fur ball. I wrote
>the carve out for CI and that's temporary.  Because we are failing to
>transition, we still need to be able to move the traffic to the
>benefit of all. Compelling. The carve out you proposed is effectively
>an infrastructure subsidy that would only further drag transition. Not
>compelling.
>
>
>[ clip ]
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There was a table topic at the PHL meeting about this and it was
>unanimous that ARIN should not be working on v4 policy or as little as
>practical. I've also heard that consistently at the mic and on the
>list. I think that's right.
>
>[ clip ]
>
>
>Best,
>
>-M<
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>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.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.