[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:34:41PM -0400, Sam Weiler wrote:
> To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these 
> particular two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is 
> appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because they see a 
> better path to accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they 
> think the new Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a 
> "better" venue for the request than the full public policy process)

There are proposals that have come in recently that can be argued
that are not policy but more focused on new services or process
for ARIN operational matters. I've argued that there has been no
other way to go forward except through the policy process for things
that are member matters (hence my objection that is recorded
in section 6 of the Arin AC meeting of May 4):
  http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ac/ac2006_0504.html

I'm very encouraged that there is now an emerging set of processes for 
non policy matters that the members can bring to ARIN that is a more logical
path forward than using the policy process. As far as the the existing
process has been defined, I personally like to see the process to be setup 
more like the policy process with reasonable overrides if there is resistance 
by leadership within ARIN but wanted by its members.*

Regards,
Mark

*I'm not saying that ARIN's Board or CEO is like that today or have
behaved badly in the past. They as a group, they are very open to changes 
and I'm honored to have worked with both CEO/President's of ARIN and the 
various board instances over the past years.

-- 

Mark Kosters            markk at verisignlabs.com               VeriSign