[arin-ppml] [arin-council] AC Role in Petitions

[cja@daydream.com]

Joe I have one more thought for you.  I have never considered weighing in to
be counted for a petition because I don't feel that it's my place to do
that. I have a huge say in the process already and I don't feel it's
appropriate for me to also petition.  I know that others on the AC feel that
way and perhaps that's why we haven't had a problem in the past.

Further, we were told that the new PDP would have this change but some of us
felt that we needed to make the change sooner and so we also made the
standing rule in the interim.

Thanks!
----Cathy

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:

> Hey Cathy,
>
> Thanks for weighing in.
>
>
> cja at daydream.com wrote:
>
>> I really thought I would stay out of this discussion but when the word
>> muzzled came up I really took offense.
>>
>
> I used that word since that is the only legitimate way that an AC member
> cannot voice support for a petition, and I do not understand any other way
> an AC member cannot be counted for a petition.
>
> I do not understand what mechanism exists, if any, that would allow the AC
> rules to alter the methodology the ARIN president uses to evaluate
> petitions.
>
> I dont support any method of implementing this rule, either by mechanism or
> by muzzling. I dont think AC rules should be a factor at all in a petition.
>
> I also dont think this rule is a good idea, that the scenario has never
> happened and is not likely to, and that the scenario is one that actually
> needs prevention has not been well sold at all.
>
>
>
>  strongly about. It's not like you're a silent bunch.  :-)
>>
>
> And I appreciate you all putting up with us.
>
>
>
>
>> Also please note that it is stated in the minutes (link below) that the
>> revised PDP is expected to have language regarding petitions that is
>> similar to the AC standing rule.
>>
>> Thanks
>> ----Cathy
>>
>
> This is the confusing part.
>
> Either this rule is valid without PDP revision or as you are suggesting, a
> revision is required to implement the rule.
>
> I would not support any such revision, fwiw.
>
> Joe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110418/e30f8b29/attachment.htm>