<!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] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Last Call</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Marty,<BR>
<BR>
The text that was presented at the meeting was flawed seriously and acknowledge to be so. Many of those speaking at the microphones agreed that the text was flawed but expressed support for an Inter-regional transfer policy.<BR>
<BR>
I believe that slide 8 was the basis for the first polling question after the DP was presented and had overwhelming consensus.<BR>
The re-written version of the DP which was crafted in the AC meeting expresses the will of the community (I believe) and incorporates all of the same elements that were itemized as the intent of the flawed text on Slide 6 of the same set of slides you reference below. I would be interested to hear how you believe the current text deviates substantially from those objectives.<BR>
<BR>
The mandate of the community was for the AC to proceed to make good policy in this area (I believe) and the AC has a duty to do so. I believe that the current text is faithful to both. <BR>
<BR>
But, I respect your hard work and interpretation, and like you I'm sure...hope that the rest of community will weigh in during this last call period to express their opinion...having heard yours and mine...and tell us whether what the AC has crafted is worthy of being sent to the BoT for acceptance.<BR>
<BR>
Bill Darte<BR>
2011-1 DP Shepherd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Martin Hannigan<BR>
Sent: Wed 10/19/2011 9:32 PM<BR>
To: William Herrin; arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Last Call<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:<BR>
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> The changes that occur to a draft policy text after presentation<BR>
>>> at the public policy meeting can be quite extensive and include<BR>
>>> any action including rewriting, merging, or abandoning. I believe<BR>
>>> that you are seeing the result of a "rewrite" of the draft policy,<BR>
>>> and this is noted as specifically allowed by the PDP for policies<BR>
>>> after PPM, with the protection being that any change results in<BR>
>>> another last call to the community.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Is this John Curran's opinion or is this the President of ARIN's<BR>
>> ruling on the process question as it relates to draft 2011-1?<BR>
><BR>
> It is the President's ruling on your process question.<BR>
><BR>
>>> Note also that you do have the option to petition for the original<BR>
>>> policy text to be sent to last call, if you do not like the action<BR>
>>> taken by the ARIN AC on the draft policy.<BR>
>><BR>
>> The original text has all of the faults that have been attributed to<BR>
>> it in this thread. It was not expressed in clear, actionable policy<BR>
>> language and was indubitably in need of editing. The last thing I want<BR>
>> to do is petition for that text to be sent to last call.<BR>
><BR>
> If that is the case, then I would suggest that you provide<BR>
> suggested changes that would improve the draft policy text.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Bill,<BR>
<BR>
I agree with you, the process has failed at least from an integrity<BR>
perspective. The last call text presented in this thread should not<BR>
be allowed to propagate under the cover of community blessing. What<BR>
was presented in Philadelphia was this:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/thursday/darte_2011_1.pdf">https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/thursday/darte_2011_1.pdf</A><BR>
<BR>
Slide 8 is the basis that is being used to claim that the community<BR>
has empowered the AC. The last call text was neither publicly<BR>
presented or polled in the public policy meeting. A completely<BR>
different and unrelated question was asked that had very narrow<BR>
consensus. There is no mandate to proceed as some have claimed.<BR>
<BR>
The last call text presented in this thread was primarily written<BR>
during the AC meeting. Even if it isn't formally in violation of the<BR>
PDP, it's poorly thought out, ill defined shotgun policy that didn't<BR>
need to be written and rushed through in the manner that is has been.<BR>
No-one on the AC is able to clearly articulate why this was necessary.<BR>
Including myself. The AC meeting minutes will paint an even messier<BR>
picture supporting my contention.<BR>
<BR>
A successful petition would continue to emphasize that we expect that<BR>
ARIN will implement critical, business impacting policy in an open,<BR>
transparent and fair way. I would certainly consider supporting one.<BR>
<BR>
I certainly appreciate the hard work of my colleagues.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
-M<<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>