<!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] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<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">mailto:hannigan@gmail.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thu 11/10/2011 11:10 AM<BR>
To: Bill Darte<BR>
Cc: Bill Sandiford; Robert Seastrom; arin-ppml@arin.net<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 <BillD@cait.wustl.edu> 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">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>
</BODY>
</HTML>