[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive
farmer at umn.edu
Mon Feb 1 00:32:10 EST 2010
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> Have you actually read the "new" PDP?
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.
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?
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. But, at the same time the AC shouldn't be allowed
to sit on a proposal forever either. At some point the lack of action
is an action, it seems reasonable for that point to be when a proposal
is not going to make it to a PPM as a Draft Policy for adoption
discussion. However, this is not explicitly covered in the PDP.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>; arin-ppml at arin.net <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Sun Jan 31 19:50:31 2010
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive
> William Herrin wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:34 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>> I would like to point out that PP#95 was originally put forward in June
>>> 2009, the AC decided it wouldn't be part of the Dearborn PPM, I supported
>>> this as I thought we had more important thins to work on. It became clear
>>> that we the AC wasn't not going to have something ready for the Toronto PPM.
>>> I therefore supported abandoning the proposal, at this time because it
>>> didn't make sense to me for us to keep it on our docket and not actually
>>> make any progress on it.
>> How is that delay possible anyway? Section 2.2 in the PDP reads in part:
>> "Council must make a decision regarding any policy proposal at their
>> next regularly scheduled meeting that occurs after the Advisory
>> Council receives the Clarity and Understanding Report from staff. If
>> the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is less than 10
>> days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent regularly
>> scheduled meeting, but the period shall not be extended beyond 45
>> I haven't examined the schedule in detail but it seems to me that more
>> time than that has elapsed since June 2009.
Bill, I just realized I didn't actually answer your question, or at
least as directly as I could have.
The AC accepted the proposal on to its docket per the terms of the
section you quoted. But we said we would not have a Draft Policy ready
for Dearborn, and this was noted as a petitionable action in the notice
I pointed out below. I don't know how I missed it the first time, but
it was there like I said it should be.
Earlier in 2.2 it says;
"The Advisory Council develops a draft policy. During this effort they
may take any action such as rewrite, abandon, merge various proposals,
or use a proposal as an idea to generate a draft policy."
Which is consistent with the action we took at our last meeting that
initiated this petition. In theory the AC could have said we still want
to work on it but won't have a Draft Policy for Toronto, delaying again.
But, I think abandoning it was more honest to the community. However,
delaying again may have been a politically wiser move, it is at least
possible if the AC sent the message that we still want to work on it,
that a petition may not have been initiated or would have failed to gain
> It was publicly announced, see:
> I thought it was announced at some point that this was petitionable, but
> I can't seem to find it. If it wasn't that was probably a mistake on
> our part, but I don't believe there was any intent to deceive anyone.
> The PDP is just a year old and we haven't figured it all out yet.
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
More information about the ARIN-PPML