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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

David Farmer wrote:
> Thanks, Ted that was a good summary.
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> Naturally the AC will need to make the "official" determination
>> but it looks like we will be discussing this.
> Actually that is Staff's job, if the AC did that, it would be the fox 
> guarding the chicken coop.  The the Staff is much better at counting 
> then us on the AC anyway, you know they have to count out each IP 
> address right, just like a teller does at the bank. :)  Talk about a 
> barrier to IPv6 adoption. :)  (only kidding)  ARIN Staff is great!!!
> 
> But, I believe most of the AC was watching, I know I was.
>> Marshall your arguments! :-)
> And yes you should do that, may I suggest everyone take a step back and 
> take a breath first.
> 
> So, a little more serious now;
> 
> I would like to ask the community to think about how we all want this to 
> work.  Personally, I've been waiting for the petition process to kick 
> in. I actually think it is a healthy thing and shows the process is 
> working.  But, we are setting precedent, this is the first petition for 
> the new PDP, so lets try to make it good precedent and all do our part 
> to make the system work.  The first use of the Emergency PDP last year, 
> wasn't the greatest experience for our community.  I would hope we can 
> make this first a much better experience for us all.
> 
> And we all will play a part in making it a good experience.
> 
> This got people charged up,

Of course it did.  The success of the petition means one thing - that
the AC made a bad decision.

Nothing wrong with that we aren't all infallible, and that is why
the petition process exists.

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.

They are not writing a UNIX man page, after all.

Ted

> but could you use a little of that energy 
> and look that the other proposals, 101, 106, and 107.  The AC need to 
> finish up the text for these to go to staff and legal review, by EOB 
> Monday.
> PP#101 has new language I sent out a couple days ago.
> 
> PP#106 Scot and I are working on, and would hope we get some new text out.
> 
> PP#107 I will be sending some more changes shortly based on feed back 
> from the staff clarity review.
> 
> Thanks and I hope to see many of you in Toronto.
>