[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 31, 2010, at 8:35 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> Of course it did.  The success of the petition means one thing - that
>>> the AC made a bad decision.
>> 
>> I disagree.  I think the AC made the absolutely correct decision and that
>> the petition means that 10 or more members of the community disagree
>> with the AC's decision sufficiently strongly that they successfully
>> petitioned it. That's how the process is supposed to work.  There's
>> nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> That depends whether this one incident becomes a pattern. One incident
> standing alone means the process is working as intended. A pattern of
> incidents, should one develop, would mean that the AC is  suppressing
> public participation.
> 
> Something to consider the next time you vote to abandon a policy
> simply because you think it's "bad." That isn't what you were elected
> to do.
> 
Bill,
	The AC was elected to help develop good, technically sound
policy.

	We do have an obligation to focus our efforts on the things
we think have the greatest potential for becoming that.  As such,
it is absolutely appropriate for the AC to abandon policies which
we feel do not meet the tests of:

	+	Good policy
	+	Technically Sound
	+	Supported by the Community

	I will not vote to abandon a policy merely because I disagree
with the policy.  (If that were the case, I would have been trying
to abandon many more policies.)  I will vote to abandon a policy
if I believe the policy to be:

	+	Detrimental to the ARIN community
	+	Technically infeasible
	+	Malformed to the point of being incomprehensible
		or non-implementable.
	+	Overwhelmingly opposed by the community

	Otherwise, even if I don't like the policy, I will vote to bring
it to the floor.

Owen