Martin, Here is the link to the transcript from NANOG 60 PPC (the one before last)
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ppc_nanog60/ppc_transcript.html#anchor_3 Here you said your main objection was the policy requiring a contract and we took that away. At the PPC in Washington (NANOG 61) there wasn't one single comment positive or negative from the audience. I fail to see from the transcript from NANOG 60 what your objections are at this time since we changed the text and removed what you said concerned you. I went back and reread it to make sure I remembered exactly what you had said. Although I have tried for many years I am unable to read minds. Please tell us what is a problem at this point. If anyone else can tell us that would be great too. Thanks! ----Cathy On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Scott, > > There have been more objections than mine all along the route. We pay > ARIN millions in fees. We simply ask that ARIN do what we believe is best. > > Assuming that this is simply about my opinion demonstrates ARINs > usual arrogance. > > Best, > > -M< > > On Monday, June 30, 2014, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I was in the room as well. I heard your objections in Chicago ( >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_33/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_11) >> "to the contract issue". Since then, ARIN-2013-8 has been revised to >> address your concern, and in fact no longer requires any contracts for >> connectivity, but simply "evidence of deployment of the new discrete >> network site". >> >> Since that revision, ARIN-2013-8 was also discussed at the ARIN PPC and >> NANOG 61 in Bellevue. I don't recall or see ( >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ppc_nanog61/ppc_transcript.html#anchor_3) >> that you (or anyone else) raised any concerns at that meeting. >> >> I believe the main objection you expressed at the ARIN 33 meeting has >> been addressed. If you have another objection, or you feel it hasn't been >> addressed, please provide some additional details. Otherwise, this will be >> my last message on this topic. >> >> -Scott >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I'm clear. I was in the room. My perspective is that they didn't listen. >>> >>> They (you) can feel free to demonstrate to us that they did. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -M< >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Jun 30, 2014, at 20:17, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Jun 30, 2014, at 7:59 PM, "Martin Hannigan" <hanni...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Asking me to do the work the AC ... >>> > >>> > To be clear, the draft policy was revised based on the >>> > input received and the AC is doing -_their_ job by asking >>> > if there remains any objections. >>> > >>> > The job of those in the community is to express any concerns >>> > that they still have with regards to the recommended draft policy. >>> > >>> > Thanks! >>> > /John >>> > >>> > John Curran >>> > President and CEO >>> > ARIN >>> > >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
