[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive
marty at akamai.com
Mon Feb 1 00:41:21 EST 2010
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.
> 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
> of the PDP, the AC could accept a proposal on to its docket and not
> 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?
> If I remember correctly, the AC came to the conclusion that when the
> decides that we were not going to move a policy forward to draft
> in time for a PPM that we would announce that as an action taken by
> 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?
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML