[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive
john.sweeting at twcable.com
Tue Feb 2 16:52:12 EST 2010
First and foremost on behalf of the AC I would like to thank you for
your commitment and dedication to the Internet community. You have
been one of the biggest contributors to the policy process and many of
your ideas are reflected in the current proposals and draft policies
that the AC is working on. PP 106 is a direct result of your efforts
on PP 103 and hopefully we are capturing some of the spirit and intent
of your proposal.
The new PDP is very different from the old IRPEP and it has taken time
for everyone to adapt to the differences. We are continuously looking to
improve and welcome all feedback on the job we are doing. I can tell
you that every single member of the AC spends many hours each month
working to improve policy as well as recommend new policies that will
be of benefit to the community.
Members of the AC have different approaches to participation - my
personal preference is to *not* post very often and then only to help
guide discussion as I would like my opinion to be formed by what I
read as well as by my past experience and current knowledge. I assure
you that as the Chair I read every post to PPML and that the
expectation is that the AC members that shepherd proposals read every
post pertinent to their assigned proposals. Most AC members read
every post. In short, it's not fair to evaluate AC members'
participation on the basis of the number of posts they make to PPML.
In addressing your research on the proposals that have been abandoned
over the last 18 months I would say that this was in no way intended
to be a personal slight and that the AC will attempt to be sensitive
to this concern in the future.
Please continue to contribute and please feel free to contact me
anytime that you see fit.
On 1/31/10 11:32 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:50 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>> Do you realize that only five of the fifteen of you have participated
>> in the PUBLIC policy mailing list this month?
> I'll just point out not everyone participates in the same way, and this is a
> good thing, there are other roles to play than opinionated guy who shoots
> his mouth off a lot, that I some time play. We do need quite contemplative
> thinkers too. I believe the AC is a well rounded group and there are many
> different roles to be played on the AC. I don't think it would serve the
> community well if we all thought and acted the same. I can tell you that
> all of the people on your list above have contributed in their own ways,
> even if it wasn't to post to PPML.
I'm not trying to single out anyone, but frankly I'm frustrated by the
AC's collective behavior this past year and I doubt I'm the only one.
I'd be far more sympathetic if all the quiet work outside the public
eye resulted more and better advice for proposal authors from among
the general public, and less suppression of proposals not written by
members of the AC itself.
Take an instructive look at the proposals abandoned prior to formal
discussion over the past 18 months:
First, the ones authored by the members of the AC:
96. Abandoned because it was process rather than policy. Referred to
the ARIN President for further action.
91. Abandoned without comment, presumably because it was principally a
challenge to a Board of Trustees action. I note that it was abandoned
despite significant support for the proposal among the community.
87. Abandoned after ARIN staff procedures were altered to accomplish
the same result.
85: Abandoned in favor of proposal 91 by the same AC member.
Now look at the difference with the ones authored by the general public:
104, 103: Abandoned because "the AC could not support this proposal in
its current form"
100: Abandoned without comment as the AC advanced a similar proposal
written by one of its members.
98: Abandoned because "the proposal is overly complicated."
95: Abandoned because it resembles a proposal defeated half a decade ago.
92: Abandoned because "The AC [...] does not believe that the problem
addressed is immediate nor of sufficient scope"
88: Abandoned without comment.
86: Abandoned on the grounds that modifications to the policy
development process can not be made through the policy development
83: Abandoned "seeing little support and a large amount of opposition on PPML."
Have I painted a clear enough picture or do I need to spell it out?
The insiders' right to advance a proposal is almost undisputed while
the evaluation of bottom-up policy has progressed from "seeing little
[public] support" to "the AC could not support."
The BoT has thrown you a nasty conflict of interest by having you sit
in judgment on your own proposals as well as those from the general
public . Quite frankly you are, as a group, handling it poorly.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
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