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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Apr 14 11:05:11 EDT 2011

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 14, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

> I'm not sure what I find more sad here, the fact that Marty is once
> again spilling the AC's dirty laundry onto PPML, or the fact that
> the AC has so many people on it intent on being secretive and
> controlling.
I don't think secretive or controlling are appropriate characterizations
of this rule.

As one of the members of the AC who voted against this standing
rule, please understand that my perspective is not that of someone
wanting to defend the rule. I think it's a bad rule.

However, having said that, I do think that the characterization of the
motivations of the individuals that did vote for the rule is not fair to
them and not accurate. I believe that the proponents of the rule
put it in place earnestly believing that it made the policy process
more fair and balanced. The intent was to prevent AC members
from having an unfairly weighted voice in the policy process.

AC members are free to voice their opinion on petitions, but, because
the petition threshold is so low and a minority of the AC (7 members)
could bring a petition with only three additional participants, the
majority of the AC felt that this created a potential for absurd abuses
of the process by disgruntled AC members.

> I am personally disgusted with the path the AC has taken over the
> last few years, which is part of the reason I chose not to run for
> reelection.  I can't fathom why rational people would try and prevent
> AC members from acting as normal members of the community.  It runs
> counter to pretty much everything that happens in normal society.
While I agree with you about the effect of the rule, I believe the intent
wasn't to prevent us from acting as normal members of the community,
so much as to prevent us from unfairly tipping the scales in the petition

> Dissent is an essential part of any democratic body.  I wish the
> AC would focus much more on _why_ there is dissent than trying to
> snuff it out and impose a totalitarian structure.
I think there is no shortage of dissent in the AC and I do not feel that
my ability to engage in dissent has in any way been reduced or restricted.
If I did, I would not be writing this message in this tone.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list