[arin-ppml] 2011-7 Status FAIL

[Owen DeLong]

> 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
> with:
> 

I believe the PPM had limited consensus and that the revisions proposed prior to the last call motion addressed the majority of the objections.

>> 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.
> 

I find it very interesting that you can characterize a simple majority+1 of the AC as "all".

>> 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.
> 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_7
> 

All but one (KB) of the objections prior to Bill Woodcock reflected fundamental misunderstandings of the proposal text, so, it's hard to put much stock in them.

Many of the other objections are about the existing policy language and not the proposal itself.

When you distill those out, you're left with a pretty small minority opposing the draft policy as written
at the time. From those, the subsequent modifications actually address most of the issues raised.

> 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.

There are certainly those who say no. There are those who say yes. Unfortunately, in the sea of
comments on other aspects not even in this proposal it was hard (at least for me) to actually gauge
the level of support or opposition to this particular aspect.

Finally, from the minutes you cited:

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. 

So, while there was a relatively even split on whether to move it forward or not (20:34), there was overwhelming support (57:6) for continuing to work on it. In fact, more people favored continuing to work on it than voted at all on whether or not to move it forward.

I'd say that's a pretty good reason for us to still be working on it.

Owen