[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-7 Compliance Requirement
jcurran at arin.net
Mon May 30 17:15:57 EDT 2011
On May 30, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 29-May-11 06:15, John Curran wrote:
>> On May 29, 2011, at 1:26 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> To strike the word "materially" from this policy, as the most recent revision of this proposal does, will radically alter its effect by forcing ARIN staff to do evil and/or stupid things. If the current wording is legally challenging, I would suggest that it is a better course of action to find a more defensible wording rather than to abandon the idea of letting smart people do smart things.
>>> Yes, this is a very bad change, IMHO.
>>> I don't believe that the word materially is a problem and Steve Ryan didn't have a problem with it in the original section 12.
>> Agreed. There is no problem with having the word "materially" in the policy, and maintaining it in the section provides clearer guidance to ARIN staff and hence is much preferred.
> Counsel's assessment of the original version of 2011-7 said this:
> "For example, the first line of the policy at 12.4 uses “materiality” as
> a standard. I strongly recommend against such a standard, as anyone who
> is treated adversely will argue their “noncompliance” is “not material.”
> If lack of compliance is the issue, it must be “black or white” as a
> review matter to protect against such drafting problems."
> That leads me to think there is indeed a problem with the word
> "materially", which I assume is what led to the word being struck from
> the latest revision of 2011-7.
Excellent point. I will review with Counsel and produce a definitive
overall recommendation regarding use of this term in the proposal.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML