Re: [ietf-provreg] legal entity vs individual person

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

At 18:10 -0400 4/17/03, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>You got consensus on this in two days. Kwel!

I'd have to say that, yes, we've managed to come to a consensus on 
this.  Again refusing to put hard metrics on what this means, we did 
have a fair spread of participants contributing comments that appear 
to be in agreement.

As far as your input, it seems that in one message you did not want 
to make a distinction between personal and corporate.   Now it seems 
you do.  Whether or not you changed your mind - which I might add is 
perfectly fine - when it came time for me to make a call on 
consensus, I figured that you agreed.

I mention that you participated to say that this is something that 
happened with you involved.  I mentioned two days to point out that 
this was a fairly fresh discussion.

>Would things go faster if the discussion period were shortened?

I assume you are insinuating that we are rushing this through.

Baring any comments to the contrary, why hold up an idea that seems 
to be met with only supporting comments?  In this case, there was one 
issue raised, but then is seemed to be washed over.  Looking deeper 
at the issue, as a chair I felt that trying to make the distinction 
was too much effort given our goal.

>Maybe we could simply dispense with discussion altogether.

Keep in mind that the words that Scott put on to the list did not 
appear out of thin air.  The words he sent on last Tuesday afternoon 
(US-EDT) are based on a older proposal as described in a message he 
sent at Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:27:51 -0500.  (I am off-net as I write, 
so I don't have access to the URLs).

The point is that the proposal has been out there for quite a while - 
December of last year - so there's reason for a co-chair to expect a 
quickly achieved consensus.

>I know this is politically charged, and many people would like to ...
>gore someone else's ox, but crapy mail from infantile uber-experts,
>first Randy, now Ted, and playing fast-and-loose with process is just
>unnecessary.

This is rather impolite.

In the balance of fast and slow, fast is better.  Too fast isn't 
good, but as fast as safely possible is best.  Instead of throwing 
words like this out - and in so doing more harm than good - why not 
state a reason that would make us give pause to stop and think?

It's possible you have something.  It's possible that the group might 
clear up  the issue for you.

E.g., Andy's suggestion.  That's something constructive to work from.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

"I'm sorry, sir, your flight is delayed for maintenance.  We are
pounding out the dents from the last landing."