<!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>The overwhelming sentiment on the PPML for both the PP129 and PP130 was opposed.<BR>
And, most of that sentiment reflected the tradition of the world based upon RFC 2050's needs-based assignments.<BR>
<BR>
BTW the author is correct in that PP130 is not as directly associated with needs based assignment, since it simply reserves space for future use of ASN holders. However, the AC believed that in a time of scarcity, such reserves would preclude others with immediate needs from acquiring those resource and was thus tantamount to the same problem.<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Aaron Wendel [<A HREF="mailto:aaron@wholesaleinternet.net">mailto:aaron@wholesaleinternet.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Fri 2/4/2011 5:03 PM<BR>
To: Bill Darte; 'William Herrin'; arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2011<BR>
<BR>
I would question whether that's a valid reason to abandon a proposal. It's<BR>
my understanding that if one doesn't like the way ARIN does something the<BR>
proper channel for change is the PDP. If the AC is going to abandon those<BR>
proposals because "it's not the way we do it" then what IS the proper<BR>
channel?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Aaron<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [<A HREF="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</A>] On<BR>
Behalf Of Bill Darte<BR>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:35 PM<BR>
To: William Herrin; arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2011<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Bill,<BR>
<BR>
So in the case of PP 130 for example. The PP was abandoned because it<BR>
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<BR>
feel any better.<BR>
I suppose we could state the obvious, that we appreciate the author's<BR>
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<BR>
believe you might find fault with that statement...and perhaps this<BR>
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<BR>
suggestion<BR>
> we should go down to three months, back to twelve months, and then back<BR>
down<BR>
> to three months again? Honestly, that doesn't sound like a good idea to<BR>
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>
_____ <BR>
<BR>
No virus found in this message.<BR>
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3420 - Release Date: 02/03/11<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>