<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.6148" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=671023802-11112011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Yes, indeed. This dialog needs to move to substantive
discussion of the merits of the DP not the PDP.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bill Darte</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>NOTE: I am retiring from the University
and want to continue to get your messages.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>PLEASE USE: My new email address
for ALL future correspondence beginning NOW....Thanks!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>billdarte@gmail.com</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Martin Hannigan
[mailto:hannigan@gmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:08
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Bill Darte<BR><B>Cc:</B> arin-ppml@arin.net; Bill Sandiford;
Robert Seastrom<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the
meaning changed?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P></P>
<P>Bill, </P>
<P>Time to move on. </P>
<P>Best, </P>
<P>Marty</P>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Nov 10, 2011 4:49 PM, "Bill Darte" <<A
href="mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu">BillD@cait.wustl.edu</A>> wrote:<BR
type="attribution">
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><U></U>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>So, OK....again you speak to the 'broken process'...and you
say there is a King James re-write...<BR>Show me where the 'major' edits
are....I call them tweaks and re-wording.<BR>bd<BR><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: Martin Hannigan [<A href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com"
target=_blank>mailto:hannigan@gmail.com</A>]<BR>Sent: Thu 11/10/2011 11:10
AM<BR>To: Bill Darte<BR>Cc: Bill Sandiford; Robert Seastrom; <A
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"
target=_blank>arin-ppml@arin.net</A><BR>Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 -
How has the meaning changed?<BR><BR>On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Bill
Darte <<A href="mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu"
target=_blank>BillD@cait.wustl.edu</A>> wrote:<BR>>
All,<BR>><BR><BR>[ clip ]<BR><BR>><BR>> What is important is not
the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,<BR>> but how faithful
those changes were to reflecting what the community<BR>> calls for and
the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.<BR><BR><BR>The
record speaks for itself and disagrees.It's a good time to
stop<BR>distracting the discussion and simply agree that the process
was<BR>broken and get on with it. We agreed to move to last call
with<BR>"tweaks". Not with a King James version rewrite.<BR><BR>Vint
summarized it best:<BR><BR>Vint Cerf: "The reason I'm raising this as
an issue, Mr. Chairman, is<BR>I'm concerned that the only way that the
Advisory Council could<BR>continue to work on it is if we all voted to - in
favor of this with<BR>some tweaks, because the value of tweak is a little
undefined. That's<BR>what I'm concerned about. "<BR><BR>From the
transcripts:<BR><BR> <A
href="https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_12"
target=_blank>https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/ppm2_transcript.html#anchor_12</A><BR><BR>[
from where we start to form "the question" ]<BR><BR>Tim Denton:
Okay. So we have heard the language from Mr. DeLong. Do<BR>we
favor it, moving it to last call with tweaks.<BR><BR>The proposition is now
going to be put to the house. Do we favor it<BR>being put to last call
with the Advisory Council making language<BR>tweaks. Please signify your
ascent if you agree. You can put your<BR>hands down.<BR><BR>Those against
the Advisory Council putting the proposition to last<BR>call even with
tweaks. Those against the Advisory Council putting<BR>this to last
call.<BR><BR>Unidentified Speaker: A question of clarification. Based
on what Owen<BR>had said, I thought we were going to be voting on whether or
not this<BR>got kicked back for complete rework, not voting against it going
back<BR>with tweaks. They're different somehow.<BR><BR>Bill
Darte: If it were to go to last call, then it would be in<BR>another
cycle of work.<BR><BR>Unidentified Speaker: That's not necessarily
true.<BR><BR>Tim Denton: Just a second. Can we just have -
no. I don't want<BR>anything further. We're reaching the stages
of lack of clarity.<BR><BR>Now, is the vote - has the vote been taken?
All right.<BR><BR>2011-1: ARIN Inter-regional Transfers. Those
in the room voting and<BR>by remote, 124. Those who are moving it to
last call and making such<BR>corrections as may be necessary, those in favor
of the proposition<BR>were 24; those against were
17.<BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>