[arin-ppml] [arin-council] AC Role in Petitions
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 13:28:50 EDT 2011
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
>> 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.
> 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.
Keep in mind that this AC rule didn't come about until after the AC was
presented with a draft of the new PDP. Most of the AC felt it would be a
good change, and adopted the standing rule in order to implement it before
the new PDP came into effect. A number of us were concerned to make sure
that the rule did not prevent AC members from expressing their opinions on
petitions, which is why it was written as it was.
> I would not support any such revision, fwiw.
Thanks for speaking up. I'm not on the PDP committee, but I know they are
looking for community input, so I would encourage anyone else with opinions
on how the new PDP should work to speak up as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML