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

[David Farmer]

Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
> 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.

It is the case with most policy and processes, they almost always leave 
a lot to interpretation.

>> 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?

Could be.

>> 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?

I believe it is a feature and it is not a bug, but it is not well 
understood by most people.

> 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.

I assume you mean this comment "The PDP is just a year old and we 
haven't figured it all out yet."  If not, please help me understand what 
comment I made that made you think I claimed the PDP had deficiencies.

My intent, wasn't that there was anything wrong with the PDP.  It was 
since much of what it really means is left to interpretation, we haven't 
explored all or even very many of the corner cases, and set precedent 
for dealing with them.  That is what I meant by, "The PDP is just a year 
old and we haven't figured it all out yet."

As for the tough questions, I supported abandoning the proposal because 
the AC was not making progress on it that we said we would.  I 
therefore, believed the best course of action was to abandon it allowing 
for the community to petition and have it succeed or fail.  If the 
petition had failed, I had no doubt that a new proposal would have come 
along and maybe it would have been a better one.

As has been mentioned on PPML by others, customer privacy should be 
driven by the customer's interest not the ISP's interest.  This proposal 
seems to protect the ISP's interest and not necessarily the customer's. 
  When I voted to accept the proposal on the the docket originally, it 
was in the intent that we the AC would work on this, looking at the 
issue from an IPv6 perspective.  That hasn't happened, and I'm not sure 
it is going to happen in the short term, so when it was recommended that 
we abandon this proposal by the AC shepherd, I supported that idea.


> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================