[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - February 2012
jmaimon at chl.com
Wed Feb 22 23:47:17 EST 2012
> 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.
To the AC as the unified body we have been told to consider it as.
You have outstripped your mandate, again. Your reasoning and conclusions
are convoluted, arbitrary and fabricated, biased in support of your own
opinions, desires and agendas.
You are ignoring the existence of THREE "specially designated class of
v4 addresses", current and pending, lobbied hard for by members AC.
You have arbitrarily moved the bar of community support, which you have
grudgingly acknowledged exists even while dismissing it as not
You have arbitrarily decided that the community is not interested in "v4
initiatives", unless of course, its a policy advanced by a member of the
in club - or a policy designed to deplete IPv4 quicker.
It was not that long ago that your first disgraceful attempt at
dictating to the community what policies would be acceptable was made.
You have arbitrarily decided upon what set of circumstances you would be
convinced that this policy merits community wide consideration and you
have arbitrarily pronounced (mis)judgement on those circumstances, in
the teeth of simple and stark numbers and facts.
What have you left over for the community you claim to represent?
You no longer speak for the larger community. You have been seduced into
redefining the community to encompass only yourselves and those who
agree with you.
You have successfully and repetitively acted in a manner that stifles
debate and frustrates participants.
I do not consider your behavior congruent with your job description.
> And regarding proposal 164, the AC said, "Due to a lack of support and
> strong opposition among the community on PPML, the AC abandoned proposal
Yes there was lack of stated support. However there can still be
interest in wider discussion. Which is part of the AC's job to determine.
Where are they now, the community members who want transition to be as
quick and as painful as possible? Who claim that the unpredictability of
exhaustion and the continue availability of IPv4 hampers IPv6 uptake?
Who advocate liaises-fair or worse, expressing the opinion that the
faster IPv4 is dead by way of RiR exhaustion, the better?
Can you not stand behind your own ideals and objectives when it is laid
out in black and white, in a policy proposal?
I wish for you to have the opportunity to speak now or (hopefully)
remain silent until after transition.
I will appeal both these decisions, petitioning any and all members of
the community (and that includes AC members too) for their support.
Whether you believe either of these proposals are worthy of
consideration in their own merit, or whether you believe the AC has not
acted in the manner you want to hold them to, I request and welcome your
support for petition of these abandonment decisions.
More information about the ARIN-PPML