It's been hours, Chris, and shouldn't you be encouraging discussion rather than
the opposite?
Regards,
Mike
---- On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:01:29 -0400 Chris Woodfield <[email protected]>
wrote ----
Given there was a proposal published last week that was withdrawn within hours
by its author*, I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to start keeping score
WRT the level of community support on this one. And while the definition of
“strong support” is intentionally subjective, my four years serving on the ARIN
AC have informed my opinion that the current AC looks for, at minimum, a lack
of opposition from other segments of the community on a proposal that appears
to have the support of only one. A proposal supported by the representatives of
one segment, and by appearances so far, strongly opposed by virtually everyone
else, tend to have a rather short lifetime on the AC docket.
-C
* Technically the author doesn’t withdraw a proposal, as it’s in the AC’s hands
once published. But in general, I would expect the AC to honor a proposal
author’s request to abandon it.
On Sep 21, 2021, at 3:48 PM, Mike Burns <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chris,
Not sure how experienced you are with this, but this proposal has only been out
for a few hours and any talk about "keeping it alive" is a tad early.
Also, you might brush up on the concept of ad hominem. It means against the
person(s). It could be only brokers who support a policy and if there are no
valid objections, that support should carry the day.
Now, do you have any objections that you would care to share, other than your
original one (which I think Owen dispensed with)?
Regards,
Mike
---- On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:37:43 -0400 Chris Woodfield
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote ----
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 2:47 PM, Mike Burns <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, my replies are inline.
>
> “Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't necessarily
> provide any form of network services. It does make sense for a broker to
> defend this model.”
>
> Noah that is a meaningless ad hominem, every transfer has a recipient.
>
You are not incorrect here - it takes two to tango, so to speak. And brokers
are an important segment of the ARIN community, to the extent that
representatives of IP brokers have been elected to the ARIN AC.
That said, one of the requirements for a Draft Policy to move forward to an RDP
is, per section 4.3:, "Changes to policy must be shown to have a strong level
of support in the community in order to be adopted.” Reading the replies to
this thread so far, the only community members that have voiced support for
this proposal have been representatives of IP brokers. Correct me if I’ve
missed any, but I see zero statements of support so far from members of any
other segment of the ARIN community.
I would be very surprised if the AC would advance to RDP a policy proposal that
has support of only one segment of the community, and as far as I can tell,
universal opposition from those who are not in that segment. If you are an
operator, ISP, or content provider who would benefit from this, I would
recommend that you speak up in order to keep this proposal alive.
Thanks,
-Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (mailto:[email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact mailto:[email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
