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

[Sweeting, John]

On 2/23/12 10:35 AM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Sweeting, John
><john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>That "intimate knowledge" is then extolled upon the entire AC during
>it's call. There are opportunities for the AC to ask questions and
>make comments as is demonstrated in the pending post of the AC
>minutes.

To some extent that is true but normally that information is shared via
email prior to the call and is also discussed at length with the Secondary
Shepherd to ensure that the right information is shared and that the
motion made is agreed on by the shepherds. The AC puts faith into the 2
assigned shepherds doing their part in evaluating and reporting on their
assigned proposals/draft policies. This process is discussed at length
during the AC annual workshop.


>
>> 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,
>
>Who were the two AC members who opted to raise a concern with wording
>of the AC's public statement? Why didn't you make that statement to
>the AC om their behalf if they weren't willing to do it themselves?


I will leave that up to them if they care to share.

>
>
>[ clip ]
>
>
>> 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.
>
>John, are you licensed to drive that bus? :-)

Marty, you have to show up for the annual workshop to get the answer to
that question! ;-)

>
>
>Best,
>
>-M<


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.