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

[william at elan.net]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 martinandersen at passagen.se wrote:

> I think you've misunderstood it all.
> 
> The conclusion from the meeting was that it would make sense to simply extend
> the current bulk download AUP to cover general usage as well (instead of
> having two separate ones). The AC will work on this. 
> 
> - Martin Andersen
> 

And so what is the difference there with what I already proposed?
 - My policy proposal was primarily repeat of current bulk whois aup, 
   extending it to become general whois aup. In fact with exception of one
   statement taken out of verisign aup it pretty much was current bulk 
   whois aup.
 - It changed bulk whois aup from being aup to becoming just service agreement
   for access to bulk whois data.

Again seems to me people misunderstood that I never meant to have two whois
aups exist - just one for whois and have that included in bulk whois service
agreement.

If members of AC have particular suggestions on the wording of the policy,
they are more then welcome to send their comments to this list or to me 
privately (note: I'd usually post all important private comments to ppml 
anyway - you'v already seen that).

> >-- Original message --
> >From: william at elan.net
> >To: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
> >Cc: "'ppml at arin.net '" <ppml at arin.net>
> >Subject: RE: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP abandoned?
> >Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >> This policy was abandoned for the reason of incorporating it into current
> >> policy; at least that is what I understood. 
> >
> >That is semantics:
> > A changes B
> > A extendes B
> > A is merged with B
> > A incorporated into B
> > etc.
> >
> >And in the past AC showed no interest in working on this policy before and
> >
> >failed in all the opportunities:
> >1. I expressed interest in general whois aup at Eugene meeting, I was told
> >
> >by ARIN to prepare a policy proposal on this which I did. Never in that
> 
> >time between meetings was I ever contacted by AC on the issue and I would
> >
> >not have prepared my proposal if I knew AC was working on the issue.
> >2. Before Whois AUP was proposed as a policy an open draft was posted to
> >
> >ppml. I did not receive any comments from members of AC on this.
> >3. After becoming a policy proposal, there was one month given to comment
> >
> >on the proposal and there again weren't any comments by AC
> >4. On the live meeting there was time to comment, comments went from the
> >
> >floor but not from the AC (beyond asking how this changes current bulk 
> >whois policy, I belive AC did not realize I meant to replace it entirely)
> >
> >
> >And the bigger problem is that AC has exceeded its authority and what it
> >
> >is supposed todo with new policy proposal based on current policy making
> >
> >rules. AC is supposed to judge support & consensus on any given proposal
> >
> >and do the following:
> > 1. If proposal has little or no support -
> >      AC can abandon it and possibly use its ideas in another proposal
> > 2. If proposal has some support but not everybody agrees with it or if
> 
> >    problems are found -
> >      AC is supposed to continue proposal for futher discussions and 
> >      work with authors to bring new version for next meeting that would
> >
> >      have more support and would have previous problems fixed
> > 3. If proposal has majority or greater support (general concensus) but
> 
> >    some flaws in wording or clarifications are necessary - 
> >      AC is supposed to work with the author to make necessary changes in
> >
> >      wording and then send the proposal to ppml for additional discussions
> >      and then to BoT and to last call. Generally it would not need to go
> >
> >      to additional public meeting having already received support there.
> > 4. If proposal is supported by everyone as is - 
> >      AC is supposed to without modifications send to last call and to BoT
> >
> >For all previous proposals and in previous meetings the above was pretty
> >
> >much what AC did, so even proposals that have some (but not even 50%) 
> >support in the way they were written were continued to new versions. Very
> >
> >few proposals were abandoned before, but this was not the case for this
> 
> >meeting and this is where AC exceeded its authority and on this meeting
> if
> >
> >you look at it - all proposals that were not brought in by memberts of AC
> >
> >or BoT were abandoned - this is even where proposals had greater majority
> >
> >support.
> >
> >Now Whois AUP proposal clearly falls into #3 above. Pretty much everybody
> >
> >on the meeting supported it, same on the mailing list. But in both cases
> >
> >several people asked for clarifications of some details (such as non 
> >policy operation issues on how to do authentication for bulk whois amd 
> >policy issues on what previous policies/aup proposal obsolutes). This is
> >
> >all fixabled without great changes to proposal generally by modifiying 
> >some words and by adding explanation section above or below on what would
> >
> >be obsoluted and how proposal would fit into existing policies. 
> >
> >As far as I'm concerned AC had no right to abondon the proposal, rather
> it
> >
> >should have contacted me if they wanted some changes and we could then bring
> >up new version to last call and get it done with and approved fairly quickly.
> >Besides that, having this done quickly would be great benefit to ARIN as
> >
> >there is good chance after adaption, the load on ARIN whois servers can
> go
> >
> >down 25-50% by having some of that moved to automatic bulk whois procedure.
> >That is both financial and operational gain for everybody. And I (and couple
> >other people) have interest in this for research purposes as well - for
> 
> >example to create real-time bogons list that is more specific then /8s.
> >
> >I think ARIN AC can still save its face and time for everybody having to
> >
> >review the proposal again if it reversed the decision to abandon the 
> >proposal. So I'm going to do the following:
> >1. Write new version with modifications necessary to clarify some points.
> >  This version will be sent as new proposal by end of next week. Please
> 
> >  note that if AC does not reverse current decision, the version will  
> >  still go through and I'm not going to ask for any AC involvement again.
> >
> >  (If there are modification to policy making as BoT is suggesting, I have
> >
> >   enough additional people who will back me up on whois aup that I do not
> >
> >   need to get AC involved and I will not)
> >2. Write official letter of appeal to AC and request that it convine with
> >all AC memberts participating and reverse decision to abandon the proposal
> >on grounds that its exceeded it authority and improperly judged support
> of
> >
> >the proposal when it abandoneded it.
> >
> >Both of the above you'll see by end of this week or next depending on how
> >
> >much extra time I have (I'm still in midwest and not back im my office..)
> >
> >But be assured, if the decision to abandone is not reversed, by next 
> >meeting the same proposal will be back and then I'll directly ask what 
> >support it has as-is (hopefully then all things will be clear in new 
> >version) and I will not seek any AC involvement (see above on all the 
> >opportunities it had where it failed to even try).
> >
> >---
> >William Leibzon
> >Elan Communications Inc. 
> >william at elan.net
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> Sök företag på Gula Sidorna
> http://www.gulasidorna.se