[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive

[David Farmer]

William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> Of course it did.  The success of the petition means one thing - that
>>> the AC made a bad decision.
>> I disagree.  I think the AC made the absolutely correct decision and that
>> the petition means that 10 or more members of the community disagree
>> with the AC's decision sufficiently strongly that they successfully
>> petitioned it. That's how the process is supposed to work.  There's
>> nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> That depends whether this one incident becomes a pattern. One incident
> standing alone means the process is working as intended. A pattern of
> incidents, should one develop, would mean that the AC is  suppressing
> public participation.

I would like to point out that PP#95 was originally put forward in June 
2009, the AC decided it wouldn't be part of the Dearborn PPM, I 
supported this as I thought we had more important thins to work on.  It 
became clear that we the AC wasn't not going to have something ready for 
the Toronto PPM.  I therefore supported abandoning the proposal, at this 
time because it didn't make sense to me for us to keep it on our docket 
and not actually make any progress on it.

Please remember the members of the AC are volunteers, we all have day 
jobs too, so there is a limit to how much we can accomplish.  Please 
don't think I'm saying this this issue is not important, I just believe 
we have had issue that were more important and we have been working on 
those.  I think we had every intention to work on PP#95, but events 
proceeded differently that we intended.

Personally, I tend to agree with Leo that if we take this on it should 
focus on IPv6 and how we want this to work in IPv6, then look at if that 
maps back into any changes for IPv4.

While I did not and do not support the petition, I do think there are 
more important things for the community to be working on.  I do support 
the petition process and believe it is a healthy thing for our 
community.  Think of it this way, the AC pushed this one back for the 
community to decide, rather than holding this proposal hostage on our 
docket.

> Something to consider the next time you vote to abandon a policy
> simply because you think it's "bad." That isn't what you were elected
> to do.

Something for you to think about is that when the AC abandons a proposal 
it doesn't necessarily mean we think it is a bad idea.  It might mean 
that we don't have time for it now, that we want the community to decide 
if it should go forward, or that we honestly just don't know what to do 
with it, these are perfectly valid reasons to abandon a proposal too.

> Regards,
> Bill Herrin


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================