[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question
In case my response was not clear:
Yes, it is absolutely appropriate for the AC to forward an issue to
the correct path for action. I will also reiterate my objection to
the use of the word reject, which I believe is wholly inappropriate to
describe the actions the AC took in these specific instances.
On 10/3/06, Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> wrote:
> I've been rereading the responses to my question: "[is it] appropriate
> [for the AC] to reject a policy proposal merely because there's a
> 'better' path for resolving the matter"?
> First, I appreciate so many of the AC candidates (eight out of ten)
> responding to my query during this election season. I also appreciate
> the reminders of the existence of the petition process, which can
> quickly make the AC's initial rejection of a policy proposal
> irrelevent. On the other hand, I'm a bit disappointed that it was
> hard to find a clear and direct answer to the exact question asked in
> some of the responses.
> As background, it's been my experience that many items that are (at
> least arguably) in-scope for the public policy process could also be
> appropriate to deal with informally (or through the new ACSP).
> I agree with most of the candidates that, in most cases, the public
> policy process is clearly a slower, kludgier, and less desirable way
> of dealing with these issues than the informal processes. On the
> other hand, the informal routes may not provide the result the
> community desires. Accordingly, I'd like the see the option of using
> the public policy process remain available for anything that could
> possibly be in-scope for that process, even when an informal
> alternative exists.
> In the interest of facilitating further discussion, I've included the
> text of the AC candidates' responses below.
> -- Sam
> Owen DeLong
> It depends in part on how much better said path is, and, on the nature
> of the path. If there is a more appropriate open public process for a
> proposal, then, I would have no problem rejecting the proposal with a
> recommendation that it be submitted, instead, to that process. If the
> "better" process is not similarly open, I would be unlikely to reject
> the proposal on that basis alone.
> Mark Kosters
> There are proposals that have come in recently that can be argued
> that are not policy but more focused on new services or process
> for ARIN operational matters. I've argued that there has been no
> other way to go forward except through the policy process for things
> that are member matters (hence my objection that is recorded
> in section 6 of the Arin AC meeting of May 4):
> I'm very encouraged that there is now an emerging set of processes for
> non policy matters that the members can bring to ARIN that is a more
> logical path forward than using the policy process. As far as the the
> existing process has been defined, I personally like to see the
> process to be setup more like the policy process with reasonable
> overrides if there is resistance by leadership within ARIN but wanted
> by its members.*
> Michael Lambert
> I like your use of the term 'metric' in the subject. Assuming that
> the metric for all the options is in the range [0,1]: If we're talking
> about 0.92 versus 0.94, I see no reason for the AC to circumvent the
> public policy process. However, if the options are 0.3 vs 0.8 it's a
> different matter. BUT, in the latter case, I would hope it is
> reasonably apparent to the entire community that the full public
> policy process is not appropriate. It's the middle ground where the
> AC needs to make thoughtful recommendations.
> Leo Bicknell
> I think a large component of the AC's job is community education. It's
> helping those who are not familiar with the process navigate through
> it when necessary. If the AC can help the proposer find a better path
> to resolution I think that makes everyone happy.
> I'll also point out that we have a petition process, documented in
> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html. I hope the AC would always be
> able to provide a path forward that satisfies the author, but if not
> there is a mechanism to allow the author to move a proposal forward.
> Andrew Dul
> The AC is chartered to make the decisions based upon the input from
> all stakeholder sources. A good example of something that is best
> addressed outside the public policy process would be issues that are
> clearly operational in nature. In the past, some issues have been
> referred to ARIN staff so they can address the issue. In many cases,
> I believe these issues have been adaquately addressed by ARIN staff.
> I see no need to overburden the public policy or the Number Resource
> Policy Manual (NRPM) with operational issues that can best be
> addressed by the ARIN staff. If ARIN staff has been unresponsive to
> an issue and a community member feels that the issue still needs to be
> addressed, the issue could be addressed through the open policy
> process; in that case the rationale should clearly state the reason
> why the issue is being submitted to the public policy process.
> The public policy process does allow a "fallback" option through the
> petition process. Any AC action can be overridden by the petition
> Stacy Taylor
> If the AC deems an issue better handled by another path or process, it
> is its responsibility to forward it on.
> Robert E.Seastrom
> I agree with both Stacy and Andrew. Micromanagement of operational
> issues via the public policy process is not a desirable outcome;
> unnecessarily constrains ARIN staff and if done too often will result
> in the NRPM becoming huge and unwieldy. The AC finding that something
> "can best be addressed by the ARIN Board of Trustees" is completely
> neutral on the proposal's merits, it's just a suggestion that it is
> more operational than policy oriented.
> The ACSP is a new thing, which should eliminate much of the need to
> use the public policy process to get the attention of ARIN's ops side.
> I think this represents a step towards goodness and applaud the
> efforts of ARIN staffers to bring it to fruition.
> As much as I'd like to put in a suggestion that at least one future
> ARIN meeting per year ought to take place in an ARIN region country
> other than the US and Canada, I suppose I'll restrain myself...
> Aaron Dudek
> It depends on what it proposal is and whether there is a precidence to
> follow. Issues on operational policies should be discussed during the
> membership meeting. If the policy falls into the public domain then I
> think that the AC should make a recommedation instead of rejecting it.
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net