<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 2/3/2011 7:34 PM, Bill Darte wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915632@ex1.cait.wustl.edu"
type="cite">
<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>
<!-- 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>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
IMHO, PP 129 doesn't confirm to needs-based assignment and
dismissing it for that reason is reasonable... but PP 130 simply
*reserves* space for future needs-based assignment, and doesn't
change the needs basis for the actual assignments under it at all.
Furthermore, it makes "needs based" assignment more reasonable for
organizations that come with a genuine need but "too late" for the
existing reserved transition space.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087915632@ex1.cait.wustl.edu"
type="cite">
<p><font size="2">
<br>
A paragraph to say that would be no clearer, nor would it make
the author feel any better.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
In this case the author doesn't particularly care whether it is one
sentence or a long-winded explanation, but thinks that for one of
them (130) the analysis may be a bit off.<br>
<br>
However, given the icy reaction to 130 on the list, it doesn't make
sense to waste everyone's email inbox space with the petition
process.<br>
<br>
Matthew Kaufman<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>