[arin-ppml] 2011-7 Status FAIL
hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 28 10:24:49 EST 2012
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:46 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
[ reordered ]
> Personally, I continue to be skeptical of the idea of using DNS as a lever
> for compliance regarding documentation of reassignments. However, I agree
> with Owen that the sense of the room at the Philly meeting was to continue
> working on this proposal, and I think important changes identified by the
> community have been made. I therefore support this proposal returning to
> the Vancouver meeting for additional discussion, despite my personal
> skepticism of the proposal.
With respect to the DNS issue, this would not be the first time that
there have been objections.
You said during the AC meeting of 16 November:
>DF stated he was uncomfortable with the DNS issues in the DP, and did not see overwhelming support. He was against the motion.
And even though the the PPM did not have consensus supporting it, an
attempt to move it to last call occurred and the AC answered that
>The motion to forward to last call failed with 9 against (DA, CA, MC, MH, DF, BS, RS, HS, JS), 2 in favor (BD, CG), and 1 abstention (OD) >via roll call.
Yet another revision containing the DNS issue that we're all objecting
has been recently published. More v4 and Section 12 time wasting.
> On 2/28/12 03:08 CST, Owen DeLong wrote:
[ clip ]
>> As such, I have trouble reconciling the actual reality with statements by
>> my colleague earlier on this list.
The minutes demonstrate that an "overwhelming" majority at the PPM in
Philadelphia objected to at least the DNS requirement yet again.
Putting all of that aside, the question should be is shutting off DNS
from the perspective of this proposal sound technical policy? It would
seem that the vast majority of the discussion has pointed to "no".
Hence, my question as to why we are still doing this.
More information about the ARIN-PPML