[arin-ppml] Proposed Petition Process for New PDP -- CommentsDue 9May
lea.roberts at stanford.edu
Fri May 9 10:47:16 EDT 2008
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Bill Darte wrote:
> I agree totally with this...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Alexander, Daniel
> > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:59 AM
> > To: Member Services; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposed Petition Process for New
> > PDP -- CommentsDue 9May
> > This is only my opinion, but I feel step 1b should be
> > modified. This step allows for a review period between the
> > originator and ARIN staff with a max of 15 days to address
> > issues. If issues cannot be resolved, the originator may
> > utilize the petition process to move the proposal forward to the AC.
> > I think this is overly complicated, and the petition process
> > should not be involved in this step. This is because the
> > petition process should not be required for an originator to
> > get a proposal presented to the AC, that they elected to
> > represent the community. While the experience of ARIN staff
> > is extremely valuable, it is contradictory to the bottom up
> > process that staff have the ability to deny a community
> > proposal, even if the petition process is available. It just
> > paints an awkward picture.
> > It would be cleaner if the staff had the 15 day review period
> > to try and resolve any issues, and then forward it on for the
> > AC to consider.
> > My two cents,
> > Dan Alexander
> > ARIN AC
More information about the ARIN-PPML