[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive
john.sweeting at twcable.com
Tue Feb 2 08:13:47 EST 2010
In answer to your question, yes the AC has continued to stay focused on the business at hand. The petition itself has not been a distraction and although some of the posts not dealing directly with the petition may seem to be a distraction we, the AC, have actually used them to discuss how to make the PDP better moving forward. Over the last 5 days the AC has edited and submitted 3 proposals to ARIN for legal and staff review and there has been 1 additional proposal submitted that should be posted later today. We are on a tight schedule for the Toronto meeting and really cannot afford to be distracted. To be perfectly honest the Petition Process is a very important part of the new PDP and the use of it is fully supported. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to address this issue.
On 2/1/10 8:44 PM, "Steve Bertrand" <steve at ibctech.ca> wrote:
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
> 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?
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.
More information about the ARIN-PPML