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

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>        The AC was elected to help develop good, technically sound
> policy.

Owen,

The AC was elected first and foremost to be shepherds of the bottom-up
public-originated policy development process. Advising whether a
particular proposal is "good, technically sound policy" is supposed to
be the very last step, not the first. Moving it to the front violates,
disrupts and eventually destroys the bottom-up character of the
process.

Welcome to corruption 101. It starts with a conflict of interest and a
sense of entitlement born of expertise and honest, earnest work. From
there it's one short slide after another down the long and slippery
slope.


> I will vote to abandon a policy if I believe the policy to be:
>        +       Technically infeasible
>        +       Malformed to the point of being incomprehensible
>                or non-implementable.
>        +       Overwhelmingly opposed by the community

Reasonable.

>        +       Detrimental to the ARIN community

Out of order. This does not belong in your evaluation prior to the
board-recommendation phase. You're supposed to help proposal authors
produce the best proposal possible that's consistent with their
intentions and then encourage community comment. Instead you cut them
off at the knees.

The "advise" in "advisory council" isn't an artifact and the board
isn't the group that needs your advice.

You won't see it. You never do. But in your unsubtle way you have, I
hope, exhibited the error for others. Because it isn't your error
alone.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004