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

[Steve Bertrand]

Owen DeLong 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.
> 
> I think in the end, it is likely that the community as a whole will uphold
> the AC's decision, but, in this case, there's enough dissent that it merits
> consideration of the full community and that's what is happening.
>>
>> My only observation on this is that I think if the AC had been
>> more specific (and long) on the explanation of why it was dropped
>> that people might not have supported the petition.
>>
> Perhaps. I guess there's a question of resource allocation there in terms
> of how much AC time should be spent justifying a decision to abandon
> vs. focusing on things still on the docket. I'm not saying we did the
> absolutely correct thing in this case, merely that there is a tradeoff to
> be considered that isn't part of your previous paragraph.

Out of curiosity, is the AC able to focus on the other items on the
docket with all of this going on?

I mean... this is the first real test. What kind of impact and/or
disruption has this caused, if any? It may be worth documenting.

>From early experience, how is this conundrum affecting the normal policy
process from progressing normally? Is it having an effect?

Steve