[ppml] More on Kremen/Cohen

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
>Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:48 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Stephen Sprunk; ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] More on Kremen/Cohen
>
>
>In a message written on Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 04:40:46PM -0700, Ted 
>Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> Since lawyers cost money, the usual procedure in most organizations
>> is to not ask them to review anything unless your ready to
>> implement it.  Our policy discussions here are quite far in advance
>> of implementation so it wouldn't be usual for them to be reviewed
>> by legal counsel.  That does NOT mean, however, that you go and
>> do something obviously illegal.  I could propose a policy that
>> spammers be shot-dead-on-sight and I'm sure a lot of people might
>> agree with it, and agree it is best for the community, your being
>> ludicrous if you say I should go ahead and propose it without
>> regard to any legal consequences.
>
>For those who haven't been to a meeting...
>
>Every proposal discussed at a meeting includes a "staff assessment".
>This includes ARIN staff providing some information on if they see
>implementation problems, and giving the time frame for work to be
>completed to implement a policy.  It also includes a review from
>council, who is also at the meeting and able to answer questions.
>
>So while a policy proposal is not reviewed by council solely because
>it's discussed on PPML, all formal proposals are reviewed and
>presented to the public prior to determining consensus.  It is
>absolutely the case that the staff assessment, either due to staff
>or council's remarks have had significant impact in how the community
>feels about proposals in the past.
>

So, did counsel ever comment on any past "shoot spammers dead on sight"
proposals?  There had to have been at least one! :-)

Thanks, Leo, for the detailed explanation of the review process.

Ted