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

[Sweeting, John]

My apologies to the PPML list for this OT thread. If anyone would like
answers to the questions below then please reach out to me individually.



On 2/23/12 11:29 AM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Sweeting, John
><john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>It's entirely true.
>
>> 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
>
>Inaccurate. See below.
>
>> 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.
>
>I've reviewed the AC email archives to try and find supporting data
>points for your statement. I'm not able to find anything conclusive
>except that all shepherds do it differently and there is no standard.
>
>
>[ clip ]
>
>>>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.
>
>Do you care to answer why you did not then act on their behalf?
>
>
>>>[ 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! ;-)
>
>[which, I did attend via telecon for almost the entire session ]
>
>I didn't happen to hear any mention of your bus license. That might
>explain why the wheels are falling off.
>
>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.