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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 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.
> 
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.

Owen

> They are not writing a UNIX man page, after all.
> 
Yeah, but, we don't have time to write War and Peace, either.
Unlike the supreme court, we aren't flooded with volunteer students
seeking to put Law Clerk in the Supreme Court on their resume.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100130/3022f5a7/attachment.htm>