[ppml] Nasty business with 2003-3

[Alec H. Peterson]

--On Thursday, February 12, 2004 15:11 +0000 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com 
wrote:

>
> Now the board of trustees did note this as an issue and referred the
> policy proposal back to the AC. But the AC did not address the privacy
> issue at all. They simply bounced it back to the BoT with a note that
> they  had "discussed" the issue.

That is correct Michael.

The fact of the matter is that privacy concerns notwithstanding there was 
consensus at the public policy meeting for the policy as written.  I will 
note that the public policy meeting minutes mention nothing about this 
issue[1], and I note that you were at the meeting and you generally are not 
shy about airing your concerns at these meetings.

For further context with respect to the AC discussion, there was a lot of 
dialogue about the fact that 'street address' could be defined as either 
the actual number, street name and unit number.  Or it could be defined as 
the entire set of coordinates that identify a location.  There was 
discussion about whether or not policies that refer to database content 
should reference specific field names (which got us back on the topic of 
re-crafting all policy that exists to make it more consistent, which is a 
laudable goal but was beyond the context of the agenda item).

I personally voted in favor of returning the policy to the BoT because:

1) There was consensus for the text as written at the public policy meeting
2) The definition of 'street address' (IMO) is sufficiently ambiguous to 
allow an ISP to not provide any localizing information.
3) The change proposed (changing 'street address' to something like 'street 
address, city, state, zip and country') would require the policy to go 
through another cycle, and there was an immediate need for a change in the 
existing policy.

Clearly there were four AC members at the meeting who did not agree with 
me, and for all I know the other five who voted in favor did so for 
entirely different reasons.  However, I wanted to give you the reasoning 
behind my vote.

Now, I also agree that the AC did miss the boat by not airing the issue you 
raised during our initial review of the final call, it took the BoT 
returning it to us for that to happen.  This was not in the minutes, but I 
requested that for future last call reviews those AC members responsible 
for watching a last call itemize each e-mail (or each thread if there are 
too many e-mails) for the AC to ensure that such issues do not fall through 
the cracks in the future.

Alec

[1] <http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_XII/ppm_minutes_day1.html#13>