[arin-ppml] Possible amendment to proposal 116

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Basically, it has been suggested that rather than the list of example technologies and
> leaving the decision of what represents a valid transitional technology up to staff that
> the proposal be amended to have the BoT create a panel of experts which will meet
> monthly (likely via teleconference) to consider what should or should not qualify as a
> transitional technology for purposes of NRPM 4.10 et. seq.

I fess up to being the unnamed. Basically, my point was that there's
going to be a certain degree of subjectivity involved in deciding
whether a plan involving a particular transitional technology is
"valid."

Asking staff to make a case-by-case subjective judgment may not be the
best idea. Staff generally exhibits excellent judgment, but how would
we get consistent results between different staff members and how
would we handle objections when an application was denied?

I looked for a way to convert that subjective judgment into an
objective one that's consistent and accountable. What I came up with
was an experts panel and a BoT vote to accept their latest
recommendations.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004