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

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Charles O'Hern <charles at office.tcsn.net> wrote:
> However I think it would be prudent and would serve the community
> well if, when a petition like these are raised, all the members of the
> AC speak up with how they voted on the
> subject that is under petition and why they voted that way.  Then
> 'John Q. Smith' would say "I voted thus and here's why" which
> might trigger more responses from the less vocal
> sectors of the PPML.

Hear hear!



> Perhaps there is policing of the ppml membership of which I am
> not aware, but at this moment it seems a simple task to set up
> 10 fraudulent identities with 10 email addresses on
> different domains representing 10 apparent organizations.  It
> would be fraudulent as hell, and eventually would be noticed,
> I'm sure.  But I worry that someone could misuse the
> system to help push their agenda into policy long before such
> fraud is noticed and acted on.
>
> How valid is my worry?

Hi Charles,

It would be pretty obvious if 10 people we've never seen before popped
out of the woodwork to support a petition. At that point the
discussion of the proposal would basically end in favor of a mild
flame war about the abuse of process. Speakers at the meeting would
repeat the point for the 5 minutes the proposal was on the screen and
then the AC would more or less unanimously vote not to advance it.
Even if they persisted with further petitions, the board would have
received a clear enough view of the consensus to reject the proposal
on receipt, from which there is no further appeal.

In essence, the fraudster could waste a few minutes of our time, but
he couldn't get a policy established this way.

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