[PDB Data Ownership-TF] Last Call for Comments (was Re: draft "Data Ownership Policy Document")

Filiz Yilmaz filiz at peeringdb.com
Mon Mar 30 08:59:03 PDT 2020

Hello all,

We had a discussion about this during the last meeting we just had. 
Both Job and Stefan noted their agreement with the wording as it is in the latest draft Chris shared:

https://www.caputo.com/dotf/0.20200325.1-WM-CC-DB-AN-TS-BS-PG.txt <https://www.caputo.com/dotf/0.20200325.1-WM-CC-DB-AN-TS-BS-PG.txt>

Accordingly, I believe we have general agreement on the wording considering the support mails so far. 
This is also confirmed during the last meeting we had (see the notes in my previous mail). 

Chris, have you received any off-list comments that you need to share with the rest of the TF after 25 March? 

If not, in line with the support during the meeting towards calling a Last Call, I suggest 5 April 2020 23:59 UTC as the deadline of the Last Call on the aforementioned draft.

Please note Last Call is for objections only. 
We do not need anyone to repeat their agreement on the draft if they have done so already. 

If we do not receive objections to the document we will have it as policy after the deadline. 

If you have objection(s), pls raise your concerns and comments on the mailing list, providing detailed arguments supporting your reasons of objection(s). 

Kind regards


> On 30 Mar 2020, at 14:39, Stefan Wahl <swa at open7.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> I agree with Job here. Simple is better.
> Best
> Stefan
>> Am 22.03.2020 um 03:21 schrieb Job Snijders <job at instituut.net>:
>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020, at 00:26, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>>> Actually how the dispute resolution is implemented should be left to the
>>> AC/Board to agree upon. Simply
>>> - This Task Force recommends that the Admin Committee charter be
>>>   amended by a dispute resolution procedure.
>>> Does that make sense?
>> At the end of the day the board is legally responsible for PeeringDB (why else does the board exist?). The role of the board should be acknowledged in this task force output. Already today anyone can write the board about an data-ownership issue which could mean they are appealing a decision someone made. 
>> If I recall correctly the group discussed on the January call to document escalation procedures. Yesterday’s draft didn’t contain such text yet. 
>> I would recommend to return to Chris’ original text: “Decisions of the Admin Committee may be appealed to the PeeringDB  Board of Directors.” as it is simplest and describes reality.
>> Kind regards,
>> Job
>> -- 
>> DataOwnership-TF mailing list
>> DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com
>> https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf
> -- 
> DataOwnership-TF mailing list
> DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com
> https://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dataownership-tf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/dataownership-tf/attachments/20200330/84577512/attachment.htm>

More information about the DataOwnership-TF mailing list