[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question
At 15:19 +0200 10/3/06, Sam Weiler wrote:
>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
The public policy process referred to above is not the real name of
the process, the formal name is "Internet Resource Policy Evaluation
Process (IRPEP)." The Advisory Council (AC) plays a role in that
If a change to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) is required,
the IRPEP is what is to be followed. Kludgy and slow is in the eye
of the beholder - due diligence may require that. Less desirable
implies that there is another process - and there isn't.
There is no informal route towards a change to the NRPM. If there
were, ARIN would be in trouble with people with different expertise
I suspect that this thread begun over the Registration Services
Agreement complaint. The RSA is not an Internet resource, hence
modifications to it is not subject to the IRPEP. The AC was correct
in, for lack of a better term, "bouncing" any proposal to alter the
Over the past few years there has been a call to allow comments from
the public and membership on ARIN's performance of its duties. The
ARIN Consultation and
Suggestion Process (ACSP) is the current vehicle for that. "Current"
as this is a new process and has yet to prove itself over time.
There is no choice to be made. Changes to the NRPM undergo the
IRPEP, which may involve the AC. ("May" refers to the exceptions for
emergency changes.) Changes to the way ARIN (and it's staff) carry
out the duties of ARIN now go through the ACSP.
To drop back into history a moment...at the ARIN meeting in October,
2004, in Reston, BoT member Scott Bradner scolded us for talking
about "IPs" and not "Internet Addresses." Although the comment
seemed rather pedantic at the moment, the use of colloquialisms is
quite possibly the root cause of why these misunderstandings arise.
When I began to prepare this message I wondered if there was a clear
delineation of what issues went to the AC. Having been on staff (but
separate from the IRPEP) and now a member representing an
organization, it wasn't until I "dug" up the formal names for the
processes and now I see clearly that there is a delineation. Perhaps
we need to be ever more formal as more and more newcomers arrive at
the meetings so we don't fall into these kinds of diversions. In
short, Scott is right.
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space?
Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch.