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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 11:29:12 EST 2012

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
>>>>>> support or extenuating circumstances that would require the creation
>>>>>> a specially designated class of v4 address space within the ARIN
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>> Primary Shepherd to draft the wording to explain why we take certain
>>> actions, since the Primary Shepherd is the one with the intimate
>>> 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
> 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
>>> as well as the originator. Also we normally try to let the originator
>>> 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.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list