[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using the Emergency PDP)

[Leo Bicknell]

On Mar 27, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> If you feel that board members should be allowed to participate in the
> policy process absent a declaration of emergency, and the majority
> of the membership agrees with you, a policy proposal to that effect  
> could
> rectify this (relatively recent) situation and return dialog to a more
> moderate mode.

I don't know of anything preventing the Board from participating other  
than their own desire to remain neutral in the process.  Indeed, I  
have seen board members at the mike at public policy meetings  
commenting on policy, but I will be the first to admit that is a rare  
occurrence.

I believe the organization is stronger when the Board stays at arms  
length from the policy process.  That said, if the Board sees a  
situation brewing where it believes it will be unable to implement  
policy for any reason it has a duty to speak up in the policy process  
while that policy is being considered.

One of the Board members used a cute analogy with me in private, he  
said "[the Board] prefers to allow the AC to make [policy] sausage  
without their tripe."

My reply was simple, I prefer to make sausage without the Board's  
tripe, but if the Board sees us making sausage and has decided to be a  
vegetarian, they need to tell us before we put the sausage in front of  
them and they turn their nose up at it.  We're happy to make a nice  
risotto instead.

-- 
        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/