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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Feb 1, 2010, at 12:32 AM, David Farmer wrote:

> Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Have you actually read the "new" PDP?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Martin
>
> Yes, several times and I have listened to several other people's
> interpretations of it, there are some issues that are not as clear cut
> as some might think.
>

This has been the case with many PDP's over the years.

>
> The question at hand here is, there is no specific deadline or time
> frame in the PDP for the AC to move a proposal from an Policy Proposal
> accepted on to the AC docket to a Draft Policy.  In theory by the  
> letter
> of the PDP, the AC could accept a proposal on to its docket and not  
> ever
> move it to Draft policy.  Then is the lack of moving a Policy Proposal
> to Draft Policy an action taken by the AC that would be petitionable,
> and if so when?
>
>

Perhaps that was intentional?


> If I remember correctly, the AC came to the conclusion that when the  
> AC
> decides that we were not going to move a policy forward to draft  
> policy
> in time for a PPM that we would announce that as an action taken by  
> the
> AC with the intent that it would be petitionable, this seems to follow
> the spirit of the PDP.
>
> I don't think it is reasonable for the lack of action by the AC to be
> petitionable at any time, the AC does need a chance to do its job  
> and to
> manage its workflow.
>

Perhaps that's a feature of the PDP and not a bug?

The reason I mentioned this was because I was surprised. You spend a  
LOT of time posting, but then when the tough questions arose you  
pointed at the PDP and claimed deficiencies.  I found that interesting.

Best,

Martin