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

[Sweeting, John]

Steve,

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.

-john


++++++


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
> 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
_______________________________________________
PPML
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
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.