[ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP abandoned?

[william at elan.net]

I was not expecting my proposals for micro-assignments or the one for 
ipv4 changes to pass - it was more of to get a reaction from the community
to these needs, So AC decision to abandon these is just fine as they are 
going to look into these issues and understood that something may need to 
be done. I'll comment on micro-allocations separatly as the direction AC 
has suggested is not quite what community may want when they are talking
about micro-assignments.

But I was kind of expecting the "Whois AUP" policy to get good reaction 
and in fact it did - there were no negative comments on the floor and two 
suggestions were that policy needs to be unified - i.e. AUP for both whois 
and bulk whois (that is in fact what policy was intended to do!) and that 
1 month time to resign agreement is too short. 

However for some reason AC has decided to abondon the policy, The justification
was that new policy needs to be created that is for both whois aup and bulk
whois aup. Again - that is what I was intending - look at the very fist line
in the proposal "The proposal -->changes<-- current bulk whois aup to 
become general whois aup", it was intended that this policy by itself will 
replace current bulk whois. In light of suggestions from the floor to make 
it more clear, I'd propose the following modifications to my policy proposal:
  In section 3 - replace sentence that begins with "These organizations must
sign 'Acceptable Use Policty for Bulk Copies of ARIN WHOIS Data' agreement" 
with "These organizations must sign an agreement for bulk whois access"
  In section 3 change "resubmit the agreement on monthly basis" to 
"resubmit the agreement when requested by ARIN to do so, which should be 
done at least once per year"

I believe this will be sufficient to incorporate comments from the floor.
As such and considering the revisions and my explanation I would like to 
get clear understanding from ARIN AC (have somebody at AC publicly comment 
on this mailing list) why the policy was abanadoned. If this was purely 
due to misunderstanding about that policy was supposed to be unified for 
all aup access and was not supposed to create two separate whois "aup" 
policies, then I'd like AC to reconsider and not abandon the policy but 
rather consider it work in progress and let me resubmit with changes by 
the next meeting, which would be above or other suggestions that AC may 
have that are relevent. If there are other reasons for abandoing this 
policy then I'd like to hear them, because I'm very confused about AC 
actions right now.

Those people at AC who have voted at AC meeting to abondon this policy - I 
expect public comment on this list why this was done.

--- 
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc. 
william at elan.net