[arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request

Owen,

Later this morning ARIN will post to the ppml the petition process in the revised PDP. It now has 4 petition points instead of the current 2. The thresholds and procedure are in consonance with the current petition process.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:52 AM
> To: michael.dillon at bt.com
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review
> Request
>
>
> On May 8, 2008, at 12:42 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > I tend to agree with this critique. In general, the new PDP is
> > OK, but I think it is unfair at the very beginning. It should
> > still be possible for people to write and submit proposals
> > just as they do today. However, unlike today, these proposals
> > are not guaranteed to progress through the PDP. They can be
> > discussed on the PPML and by the AC, and eventually, the AC
> > may decide to create a formal proposal based on the submitted
> > proposal(s) and the discussion.
> >
> I think you need to re-examine the current IRPEP.  There's very
> little modification to the initial part other than adding interaction
> with ARIN staff and an earlier legal review to assist the author
> in crafting a policy which can actually be implemented and really
> meets the author's intent.
>
> The proposed PDP does not prevent people from writing and
> submitting proposals just as they do today.  The current IRPEP
> does not guarantee that proposals move through the process.
>
> See the IRPEP under the heading "Initial Review" and you
> will notice that at that early point, the AC does have the option
> of abandoning policies.  There is a petition process in this case.
> The proposed PDP provides pretty much the same options.
>
>
> > This solves the problem of overlapping proposals because they
> > don't ever go through the formal process. The AC has the power
> > to combine all the overlapping proposals and other input to
> > create a formal proposal. Or they can ignore all of them if
> > they wish.
> >
> Yes.. The ability to edit, combine, etc. is the major change in
> the new proposal.
>
> The ability to abandon a proposal is not new.  The ability to
> discuss potential proposals informally on PPML does not go
> away with the new process.
>
> The petition process details still need to be defined, but, assuming
> a similarly low threshold for petition success in the new proposed
> process, I don't see a significant difference in the bottom-up
> nature.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy
> Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if
> you experience any issues.