[arin-ppml] 2011-7 Status FAIL
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Tue Feb 28 12:19:41 EST 2012
>> From the link that you included:
>> "In relation to the second motion, whether the AC should be asked to
>> continue to work on it, the total number of people in the meeting room
>> and by remote are 167. In favor of asking them to do further work on
>> it were 57 and against them doing further work on it is 6."
>> To be clear, that's 57 to 6 in favor of further work on 2011-7. I'm
>> really not sure how you can misinterpret that.
> Let's put this back into context:
> The minutes demonstrate that an "overwhelming" majority at the PPM in
> Philadelphia objected to at least the DNS requirement yet again.
Let's put this back in the realm of objectivity:
"In relation to Draft Policy No. 2011-7, Compliance Requirements, the
total number of people meeting in the meeting room and remote was 167.
Those in favor to move forward were 20; those against were 34."
Yes there were more folks against the draft as presented than for it,
but 34 to 20 against is not what I would call overwhelming. In fact,
the 57 to 6 in favor of further work is _much_ more apt to be called
"PPML discussion. 12 posts by 7 people; 0 in favor and 0 against.
It's mostly editing the version.
Earlier discussion. 22 posts by 10 people; 2 in favor and 2 against."
So on the PPML it was 2 to 2. Can anyone claim that is "overwhelming?"
As the primary shepherd of this draft policy, I can not ignore the
realities contained in the records that have been sited here. I can
not in good conscience turn away from the community on request of one
person (AC member or not). Thus, I continue to shepherd this policy
through the process. That process includes hearing from the broader
community. As such, I would love to hear specific feedback from other
members of the community. Repeated badgering by a lone voice will be
ignored - I will know it as badgering in part based on language used,
especially in subject lines.
More information about the ARIN-PPML