[arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request

[Owen DeLong]

On May 7, 2008, at 12:21 PM, John Santos wrote:

>
> I have two problems with this proposal.  1) At several places,  
> disatisfied
> originators can initiate petitions to bypass AC decisions.  The  
> proposal
> then describes what happens to "successful petitions".  What makes a
> petition successful?  Does it just need to be entered or does it need
> to be seconded or supported by some minimum number of "petition  
> signers?"
> Who makes the decision on whether a petition is "successful" or not?
>
John,
	I completely agree with you here and have asked for clarification
in this area.

> 2) At various points (2a, 5a) in the process, the policy proposal
> is describe as becoming "owned" by the AC.  Does this mean that the
> proposal is "property?"  Given the current discussions of whether
> various actions and activities imply that IP addresses are property,
> maybe we should steer clear of that verb, substituting something like
> "the AC is responible for the proposal" for "the AC owns the  
> proposal."
>

	Agreed that some word smithing could improve things with this.
In case there's any lack of clarity, my understanding of the intended
purpose is that the AC, upon acceptance of the proposal is given
the ability to modify, alter, merge, etc. the proposal which is  
currently
restricted to the proposal authors.  The petition capability is intended
as a safety valve against the AC arbitrarily altering the author's   
intent
in a way contrary to the desire of the community.

	I think this will actually improve the process, and, assuming that
the petition safety valve is at a sufficiently low threshold, I  am  
confident
it will not reduce community involvement in the process or prevent
authors from expressing their true intent.

Owen