<!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 - January 2011</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Bill,<BR>
<BR>
So in the case of PP 130 for example. The PP was abandoned because it didn't conform to the communities principle of needs-based assignments.<BR>
And, that was the stated reason. <BR>
<BR>
A paragraph to say that would be no clearer, nor would it make the author feel any better.<BR>
I suppose we could state the obvious, that we appreciate the author's involvement and willingness to engage in the PDP. <BR>
<BR>
We all do appreciate that and I guess we should state it....but somehow I believe you might find fault with that statement...and perhaps this one....considering each disingenuous.<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of William Herrin<BR>
Sent: Thu 2/3/2011 8:18 PM<BR>
To: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2011<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:31 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:<BR>
> Yes, but the current policy (2009-8) activated today with IANA exhaustion,<BR>
> it would have taken emergency action to prevent that. Or are you suggestion<BR>
> we should go down to three months, back to twelve months, and then back down<BR>
> to three months again? Honestly, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.<BR>
<BR>
David,<BR>
<BR>
That might have been a good reason for bouncing it. But "there isn't<BR>
time" is disingenuous. There's always time.<BR>
<BR>
It sets me off when a member of the AC (or the AC as a whole)<BR>
announces that there isn't time for something. Not enough time to get<BR>
this through the process. Too many proposals, not enough time to work<BR>
on this one. Call it a pet peeve.<BR>
<BR>
Many of you are past your first terms. If you couldn't figure out how<BR>
to make time, you shouldn't have run for reelection. You know: lead,<BR>
follow or ::get out of the way::. Those of you past your first terms<BR>
did run for reelection. So now it's just a wussy excuse.<BR>
<BR>
This is part of another irritant for me as well: I find the brusque<BR>
way the AC disposes of proposals it decides to abandon to be<BR>
disrespectful to their authors. A proposal author has spent hours<BR>
behind the scenes carefully crafting language, researching process and<BR>
writing justification. When you make the decision instead of leaving<BR>
it to consensus, simple courtesy demands at least a paragraph from<BR>
each of you explaining why the proposal wasn't good enough.<BR>
<BR>
-Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us<BR>
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<A HREF="http://bill.herrin.us/">http://bill.herrin.us/</A>><BR>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<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>