[arin-ppml] 2011-7 Status FAIL
celestea at usc.edu
Tue Feb 28 14:47:19 EST 2012
I am opposed to this policy as written ( the revised version). I believe
that ARIN resources could be better directed to other efforts.
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:36 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2011-7 Status FAIL
> 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
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
> 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.
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.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML