[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
> 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.
Ed, I admire your ability to see things in such black and white
terms. I don't.
When the NRPM already deals with a particular matter, yes, the IRPEP
is needed to change it. When it doesn't, the path is less clear.
Here are some particular examples of changes that I think could
(arguably, at least) be handled through either the IRPEP or outside
-- 2006-6. This has already been addressed outside of the IRPEP.
-- 2006-3. It appears that staff can modify the templates to do this
even without specific direction from the IRPEP.
-- 2006-1. Had there been broad agreement with my interpretation of
2003-3, staff could have made that clarification without needing
the proposal -- arguably, we don't even need to change the NRPM.
-- The RSA Modification procedure and Requirement for Reasonable
Contract Terms proposals: the proponents thought these were
appropriate for the IRPEP, but they were addressed (in some
fashion), by the staff/board. I continue to believe that
significant hurdles to getting resources are within scope for the
IRPEP, and the RSA certainly counts as such a hurdle.
-- 2003-7. The policy proposal was abandoned, but ARIN seems to be
doing this now.
So, again, while I agree that the IRPEP is needed to change the NRPM,
remember that the NRPM "... is only a reformatting of existing policy
statements," and it is often ambiguous as to whether a change in a
process that isn't already mandated in the NRPM needs to be adopted
through such a policy or could be adopted by the board/staff on its