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

[Owen DeLong]

> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 

The PDP revision was proposed to the AC by the PDP Committee. The AC decided that it was worth implementing
this change sooner than the more thorough  PDP revision process would allow and passed the standing rule as
an attempt at expediting the change.

While I did not support the rule and do not support the change to the PDP, I do not feel that the AC
engaged in anything underhanded in the process. Their intent was clear and above board. The entire
AC voted on the motion and the vote was 13 yes, 2 no (Martin Hannigan and Owen DeLong).

I don't know whether the AC's action is valid within the technicalities of the rules and/or the rule making
process and I will leave that judgment to others. However, I do believe that the rule was passed legitimately
in good faith by the AC. I applaud that the AC in making the rule was careful not to attempt to muzzle
the AC members from expressing their opinions about petitions and/or the petition process. I do not
recall a single AC member speaking in favor of limiting our comments.

I suggest we all take a breath and wait for counsel to weigh in on this. If it turns out that such a rule is
not a legitimate mechanism, then, I'm sure Marty's support of the current petition will get properly
counted.

Owen