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

[David Farmer]

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
> days."
> 
> I haven't examined the schedule in detail but it seems to me that more
> time than that has elapsed since June 2009.

It was publicly announced, see:

http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-June/014661.html

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.

>> Something for you to think about is that when the AC abandons a proposal it
>> doesn't necessarily mean we think it is a bad idea.  It might mean that we
>> don't have time for it now, that we want the community to decide if it
>> should go forward, or that we honestly just don't know what to do with it,
>> these are perfectly valid reasons to abandon a proposal too.
> 
> If its an actionable proposal but you "don't know what to do with it"
> it seems bloody obvious to me that you should advance the proposal and
> let the community determine what to do with it. Sitting in judgment is
> the board's job. Yours is advising: first the proposal authors, second
> the community at large and only as a distant third advising the board.
> 
> In proposal 95 as well as other recent proposals, it seems to me you
> guys have skipped the "advising" part and move straight to judgment.
> 
> 
>> Please remember the members of the AC are volunteers, we all have day jobs
>> too, so there is a limit to how much we can accomplish.
> 
> I have a day job too, yet I've found the time to write thorough and
> well supported proposals only to have the AC "fail to find the time"
> for them.
> 
> I'm not so concerned about you but what about the the half of the AC
> who can't even find time to participate on PPML?
> 
> Marla Azinger. Last PPML post September 2009
> Stacy Hughes. Last PPML post September 2009
> Heather Schiller. Last PPML post: July 2009
> Dan Alexander. Last PPML post: June 2009
> Bill Sandiford. Posted a message on the PPML exactly once.
> Marc Crandall. Has he *ever* participated on the PPML?
> Tom Zeller. No participation identified in the last decade of PPML archives.
> 
> 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 calling a Whisky Tango Foxtrot here.

That is your right and if you think it is necessary you should.

> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 


-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================