[arin-ppml] Proposed Petition Process for New PDP -- CommentsDue 9May

Bill Darte BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Fri May 9 11:38:21 EDT 2008

But, the point here is one of perception.
If staff can't resolve then the AC doesn't get it and the petition
process is invoked....perception may be that staff rejected it. Bad
If staff can't resolve and AC gets it and can't resolve...all of the
above is true, but the elected representatives have done it.... As is
their role.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:56 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposed Petition Process for New 
> PDP -- CommentsDue 9May
> In a message written on Fri, May 09, 2008 at 08:59:14AM 
> -0400, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> > 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.
> My understand of the reason for this step was to make sure 
> staff understood the proposal.  They would make no evaluation 
> of the merit of the proposal, simply if they understood the 
> proposal as written.
> The idea being of course, if staff doesn't understand the 
> proposal it makes little sense for everyone else to spend 
> time debating it since one of two outcomes is likely, it will 
> be rewritten so staff can understand it, or it would be 
> passed and staff would have no idea how to implement it as 
> they don't understand it.
> That said, if the alternative you propose is that the staff 
> performs their review (15 day window) and then simply sends 
> the proposal to the AC with "we understand it" or "we don't 
> understand it" and the AC uses that as one of the inputs to 
> the decision to accept or reject the proposal then I could 
> support that as well.  The most likely outcome to me though 
> is that it results in a delay to the authors, rather than the 
> staff sending back e-mail in the 15 day window saying "we 
> don't understand" it will have to wait for the next AC 
> meeting for the AC to say "we reject the proposal because the 
> staff can't understand it".  Not a huge worry on my part, but 
> something to point out.
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list