[arin-ppml] [arin-council] AC Role in Petitions
jmaimon at chl.com
Mon Apr 18 14:16:42 EDT 2011
Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com
> <mailto:jmaimon at chl.com>> wrote:
> 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.
At the risk of repeating myself.
I dont understand the logic that this rule can be implemented either as
part of the PDP and/or as a hand wave of the AC, unless this rule is
accomplished by preventing the AC members from uttering their statement
of support. Were the rule to do that, we would be dealing with a
different, but worse, situation.
You cant have your cake and eat it too.
Which mechanism is utilized by the AC to affect the petition evaluation
process as defined in the PDP? Does the ARIN president lend special
weight to the AC rules of who and how it is to be evaluated? The same AC
that is being petitioned against?
> 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.
I hope that a bit more than community input will be involved.
More information about the ARIN-PPML