<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2010</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It's the burying in peat part that I like best...<BR>
;-)<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Ted Mittelstaedt<BR>
Sent: Wed 10/13/2010 5:55 PM<BR>
To: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2010<BR>
<BR>
On 10/13/2010 1:33 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On 10/13/10 3:36 PM, "Sweeting, John"<john.sweeting@twcable.com> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> Marty,<BR>
>><BR>
>> Thanks for the opportunity to respond:<BR>
>><BR>
>> The main issue is that the official label for those addresses is legacy<BR>
>> addresses but not all legacy addresses are wrapped up in that particular<BR>
>> issue. Since we became aware that the issue surrounding these particular<BR>
>> addresses should/would/will be cleared up in the next 10 days or so and given<BR>
>> the struggle that we had trying to find language that would work we decided as<BR>
>> a body to table the motion to send it to last call. This will be dealt with on<BR>
>> our very next AC call which is scheduled for November 18th.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> John,<BR>
><BR>
> I'm not challenging anything other than the fact that the AC opted to table<BR>
> something that they had strong direction to work on. It's fair for us to ask<BR>
> for the AC to legitimize a decision especially when there is clear<BR>
> consensus.<BR>
><BR>
> With regards to the global proposal, you both (Bill and you) have now said<BR>
> that Geoff's hypothetical issues will be moot in a few days. This proposal<BR>
> is nowhere near adoption or implementation and won't be within ten days. It<BR>
> will likely take six months or more if it is even adopted globally. I think<BR>
> that issue is a non-issue unless there's something that don't know that<BR>
> didn't come out in the list or meeting discussion.<BR>
><BR>
> That leaves Owens reading of some language which had identified as unclear<BR>
> and we asserted that he was in error. Still, we suggested some text to<BR>
> clarify and since it's only an edit related to clarity and not context it<BR>
> could also be easily dealt with by the ASO AC at the end of the cycle and in<BR>
> compliance with their PDP as well as all of the other regions.<BR>
><BR>
> This proposal is on the agenda of three other RIR forums at the moment.<BR>
> LACNIC next week, Rome after that and AfriNIC following that. Making a major<BR>
> modification at this point is a problem as was demonstrated with 2009-06,<BR>
> and holding it up for a non context impacting clarity concern doesn't seem<BR>
> reasonable all considered.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
I have to disagree. Another month isn't going to harm a good proposal.<BR>
<BR>
When I first proposed the WHOIS POC e-mail cleanup in Aug 2008 that<BR>
eventually morphed into section 3.6.1 of the NRPM, it took almost a<BR>
year, and the proposal was merged into two other subsequent proposals<BR>
that came out because of my proposal. See:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-November/012721.html">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-November/012721.html</A><BR>
<BR>
linked under<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_7.html">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_7.html</A><BR>
<BR>
And even after it was adopted almost a year later in 2009 it<BR>
still took 6-8 months for it to even be implemented by ARIN<BR>
staff (and as far as we know it's still being implemented)<BR>
<BR>
So I don't buy the idea that any one proposal is so all fired<BR>
important that it must be fast-tracked ONE MONTH.<BR>
<BR>
Pushing to fast track it is an insult to everyone else who has<BR>
submitted proposals and patiently waited for the slow grind<BR>
of the ARIN bureaucracy even when it was DRIVING THEM INSANE!<BR>
<BR>
My advice is sit back, relax and be reminded of the immortal words<BR>
of Douglas Adams:<BR>
<BR>
"...Vogons are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not<BR>
actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous.<BR>
They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the<BR>
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate,<BR>
sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry,<BR>
lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and<BR>
recycled as firelighters...."<BR>
<BR>
Once you understand that the policy process is run by Vogons it<BR>
will all become clear!!! ;-)<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>