[arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
Wed May 7 16:43:08 EDT 2008
- Previous message: [arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request
- Next message: [arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote: > Your comments are requested on the proposed policy development process! > Please post your opinions to arin-ppml at arin.net no later than 5 PM EDT, > Friday, 9 May 2008. At a glance, it looks like this proposal alters the AC's role from being knowledge resources to being traffic cops. Everybody hates traffic cops. Right now, the policy development process starts with an idea, a complaint, a hypothetical that comes as often as not from someone who has little or no experience with ARIN. The notion finds its way to PPML in one form or another where it gets informally bounced back and forth and eventually coalesces into a proposal. This is a very healthy, very bottom-up process. It contributes heavily to ARIN's relative reputation for trustworthiness (as opposed to say, ICANN), even though ARIN is placed in the unfortunate position of blocking and rejecting IP address requests from organizations too small to play (which is almost everybody). This proposed change cuts or at best ignores that vital first step in the policy development process. The proposed process -starts- with the formal proposal. Do you propose to change the mailing list so that discussion starts with a proposal that has passed the AC's first review? Police it to assure that participants stay on topic? Limit it so that only folks who have achieved enough expertise in ARINology can initiate a discussion (by way of a proposal)? It would be nice to avoid overlapping and confusing proposals, policy text in flux even at the meetings and staff comments about the technical soundness of a proposal that arrive too late to discuss changes before the meeting. However, in my ever so humble opinion, we have a Really Good Process in place already and not one of those goals (or all of them together) is worth the RISK of damaging that process that a significant overhaul represents. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
- Previous message: [arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request
- Next message: [arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list