From info at arin.net Tue Jun 5 14:04:23 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:04:23 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder Message-ID: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> On Tuesday, 29 May, ARIN opened a consultation with the community regarding a revised Policy Development Process (PDP) for Internet number resource policy development in the ARIN region. Significant changes in this revision of the PDP include: * Improved PDP process scope definition * Clarified principles for good number resource policy (fairness, technical soundness, community support, etc.) * Clarified Board criteria for developed policy ratification * New initial policy proposal review by the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) * Smoother transition from policy proposal to draft policies upon successful initial review * Added requirement for the AC to provide a full explanation of any policy action taken * One petition per policy action; if successful, petitioners mutually select the presenter of the draft policy at Public Policy Meetings The above changes will have a significant impact on how community members participate in the PDP, and how policy proposals are seen through to fruition. We urge all community members to view the text of the revised Policy Development Process at: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html Discussion will close on 28 June. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Tue Jun 26 13:30:38 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:30:38 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> The consultation on the revised Policy Development Process is closing this week. This version of the PDP incorporated changes as a result of the discussion and feedback from an earlier consult that took place in September 2011. While it is delightful that there have been no objections to this version; if you have read the revised PDP and agree with it, a few posts in support would be most appreciated. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) On 6/5/12 2:04 PM, ARIN wrote: > On Tuesday, 29 May, ARIN opened a consultation with the community > regarding a revised Policy Development Process (PDP) for Internet number > resource policy development in the ARIN region. > > Significant changes in this revision of the PDP include: > > * Improved PDP process scope definition > * Clarified principles for good number resource policy (fairness, > technical soundness, community support, etc.) > * Clarified Board criteria for developed policy ratification > * New initial policy proposal review by the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) > * Smoother transition from policy proposal to draft policies upon > successful initial review > * Added requirement for the AC to provide a full explanation of any > policy action taken > * One petition per policy action; if successful, petitioners mutually > select the presenter of the draft policy at Public Policy Meetings > > The above changes will have a significant impact on how community > members participate in the PDP, and how policy proposals are seen > through to fruition. We urge all community members to view the text of > the revised Policy Development Process at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html > > > Discussion will close on 28 June. > > If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 13:53:25 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:53:25 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> Message-ID: One thing I noticed, and would like community feedback on, is this supermajority requirement (and 60-day deadline to avoid going to another public policy meeting): A Recommended Draft Policy that has undergone a successful Last Call > discussion may be sent to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption > consideration. Decisions to send Recommended Draft Policies to the ARIN > Board shall be made by the affirmative roll call vote of the two thirds of > the members of the full Advisory Council. The results of the Advisory > Council's decisions, and the reasons for them, are announced on the PPML. > All recommended policies not sent to the ARIN Board of Trustees for > consideration within 60 days of Last Call completion will revert to Draft > Policy status. Do folks feel that is an improvement over the current PDP (which requires a simple majority of the full AC to send a draft policy to the board, with no time limit)? Or is that too high a bar? Thanks in advance for any input, Scott On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM, ARIN wrote: > The consultation on the revised Policy Development Process is closing this > week. > > This version of the PDP incorporated changes as a result of the discussion > and feedback from an earlier consult that took place in September 2011. > > While it is delightful that there have been no objections to this version; > if you have read the revised PDP and agree with it, a few posts in support > would be most appreciated. > > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > On 6/5/12 2:04 PM, ARIN wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 29 May, ARIN opened a consultation with the community >> regarding a revised Policy Development Process (PDP) for Internet number >> resource policy development in the ARIN region. >> >> Significant changes in this revision of the PDP include: >> >> * Improved PDP process scope definition >> * Clarified principles for good number resource policy (fairness, >> technical soundness, community support, etc.) >> * Clarified Board criteria for developed policy ratification >> * New initial policy proposal review by the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) >> * Smoother transition from policy proposal to draft policies upon >> successful initial review >> * Added requirement for the AC to provide a full explanation of any >> policy action taken >> * One petition per policy action; if successful, petitioners mutually >> select the presenter of the draft policy at Public Policy Meetings >> >> The above changes will have a significant impact on how community >> members participate in the PDP, and how policy proposals are seen >> through to fruition. We urge all community members to view the text of >> the revised Policy Development Process at: >> https://www.arin.net/**participate/acsp/community_** >> consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html >> >> >> Discussion will close on 28 June. >> >> If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net. >> >> Regards, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> > ______________________________**_________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/**listinfo/arin-consultPlease contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 26 17:49:47 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:49:47 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> Message-ID: I'm of mixed emotions on it frankly. I do think it would tend to lead us more towards consensus and less of a tendency to push through controversial policies. OTOH, some of our best and most useful policies have been controversial ones that passed by narrow margins, while some of our worst have enjoyed strong supermajorities. As such, I think it is generally more bad than good. YMMV Owen On Jun 26, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > One thing I noticed, and would like community feedback on, is this supermajority requirement (and 60-day deadline to avoid going to another public policy meeting): > > A Recommended Draft Policy that has undergone a successful Last Call discussion may be sent to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption consideration. Decisions to send Recommended Draft Policies to the ARIN Board shall be made by the affirmative roll call vote of the two thirds of the members of the full Advisory Council. The results of the Advisory Council's decisions, and the reasons for them, are announced on the PPML. > All recommended policies not sent to the ARIN Board of Trustees for consideration within 60 days of Last Call completion will revert to Draft Policy status. > > Do folks feel that is an improvement over the current PDP (which requires a simple majority of the full AC to send a draft policy to the board, with no time limit)? Or is that too high a bar? > > Thanks in advance for any input, > Scott > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM, ARIN wrote: > The consultation on the revised Policy Development Process is closing this week. > > This version of the PDP incorporated changes as a result of the discussion and feedback from an earlier consult that took place in September 2011. > > While it is delightful that there have been no objections to this version; if you have read the revised PDP and agree with it, a few posts in support would be most appreciated. > > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > On 6/5/12 2:04 PM, ARIN wrote: > On Tuesday, 29 May, ARIN opened a consultation with the community > regarding a revised Policy Development Process (PDP) for Internet number > resource policy development in the ARIN region. > > Significant changes in this revision of the PDP include: > > * Improved PDP process scope definition > * Clarified principles for good number resource policy (fairness, > technical soundness, community support, etc.) > * Clarified Board criteria for developed policy ratification > * New initial policy proposal review by the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) > * Smoother transition from policy proposal to draft policies upon > successful initial review > * Added requirement for the AC to provide a full explanation of any > policy action taken > * One petition per policy action; if successful, petitioners mutually > select the presenter of the draft policy at Public Policy Meetings > > The above changes will have a significant impact on how community > members participate in the PDP, and how policy proposals are seen > through to fruition. We urge all community members to view the text of > the revised Policy Development Process at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html > > > Discussion will close on 28 June. > > If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhett at netconsonance.com Tue Jun 26 18:21:26 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:21:26 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> Message-ID: <886C9FE8-191F-4D7C-9840-898C407B698E@netconsonance.com> On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > OTOH, some of our best and most useful policies have been controversial ones that passed by narrow margins, while some of our worst have enjoyed strong supermajorities. I've been trying all day to find the words that Owen just did. It simply isn't possible to determine if a larger majority will make for better policies, and it could quite well lead to the opposite. I'm not sure I would muster the effort to fight it, but I don't support it. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 26 21:03:03 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:03:03 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> Message-ID: A quick caveat: these comments are intended to be constructive, suggesting improvement. If any seems otherwise, then I did not explain myself well and you misunderstood me. >One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >[...] >Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >Process and may only be made with the concurrence >both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the PDP without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. > One. 4.3. Supported by the Community 4.3 is a weaker statement than 3.3 in the current PDP which demands that policy be initiated from the bottom up: by the community at large, not by its elected and appointed stewards. And after gaining consensus. > 5.2. Developed by Open & Transparent Processes This could be better. Open, Transparent and Inclusive. > Two. All ARIN Advisory Council decisions on policy matters > require an affirmative roll call vote of the majority of the > members of the full Advisory Council, unless otherwise specified. Does this mean that a majority of a quorum is not acceptable, it must in fact be 8 of the 15 members of the AC? > Two. 2. Policy Proposal Evaluation > >During Policy Proposal evaluation, the Advisory >Council does not evaluate the merits of Policy >Proposal other than to confirm that the Policy >Proposal is within scope of the Policy Development >Process and contains a clear statement of the >problem and suggested changes to number >resource policy text. I *really* like this. >A submitted Policy Proposal >that is not rejected upon evaluation as being >out of scope remains on the docket as a Policy >Proposal until it is withdrawn by originator or >accepted by the Advisory Council as a Draft >Policy. This text doesn't flow well into the next section. There's too big a conceptual gap from "_the proposal_ is on the docket and under consideration by the AC" to the next part where the "Advisory Council participates in and encourages the discussion of the _Draft Policies_." When should the AC accept a proposal as a draft? Should a proposal really remain on the docket forever because the AC dislikes it and the author is too stubborn to withdraw it? Does the AC "not evaluate the merits of Policy Proposal" like it says in the section's first paragraph or can they consider whether they think it's a good policy before accepting it as a draft? Is it possible to petition a policy proposal to draft status or is it stuck in limbo if the AC agrees its properly constructed but dislikes it? > 6. Confirming Community Support for Recommended Draft Policies > The Advisory Council confirms community > support for Recommended Draft Policies, and > this support may be ascertained by a show of > hands during a Public Policy Consultation. And... anything else? Or is a show of hands at an in-person PPC the only approved way of ascertaining community support? Needs improvement. > 7. Last Call > If the Advisory Council sends a Recommended Draft >Policy different than the Recommended Draft Policy >presented during the Public Policy Consultation, then >the Advisory Council will provide a detailed explanation >for all changes to the text and these specific changes >must have been discussed during the community >consultation at the Public Policy Meeting. A laudable attempt at saving the AC's ability to revise the proposal post-meeting but completely impractical. How does one discuss "specific changes" to a written document at a 200-person meeting? Throw it up on a screen and type new sentences? Or toss around vague ideas and write specific text later? Even if you solve that, the concept itself is defective: the better way to improve a policy will come after everybody has slept on it. After the meeting. > 2.2. Petition for Recommended Status > 2.3. Petition for Last Call There appears to be a hole here. A petitioner can advance a draft to recommended status. If the AC then radically changes its text and advances the changed version to last call, the petitioner does not appear to have any recourse through which he can advance the original to last call. The petitioner can only act if the AC fails to advance any form of his proposal to last call. Or have I misread it? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 26 21:09:33 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:09:33 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> Decisions to send Recommended Draft Policies to the ARIN >> Board shall be made by the affirmative roll call vote of the two thirds of >> the members of the full Advisory Council. > > Do folks feel that is an improvement over the current PDP (which requires a > simple majority of the full AC to send a draft policy to the board, with no > time limit)? ?Or is that too high a bar? I like it and I'd like to see the concept generalized. Consensus means converting the opposition to support. A policy should meet a progression of increasingly higher demonstrations of support to be adopted. A low hurdle to enter draft stage and formal discussion. A higher hurdle to get to last call. And a higher still hurdle to go to the board. While not perfect by any means, that seems like it would be more likely to track the general consent of the community than a simple majority vote. Here's the thing... if you believe that the ends don't justify the means (and you should; it's self-evident) then you have to accept the converse: the integrity of a process is more important than any single result. ARIN desires to represent the will of the address-using community. The process of codifying that will should reflect that, even if the community's will is sometimes contradictory, suboptimal and on rare occasion self destructive. If the process is trustworthy, the community can correct any mistakes. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > OTOH, some of our best and most useful policies have been controversial ones > that passed by narrow margins Name three and I'll tell you how each has damaged the address management process where a little more care might have avoided the problems. > while some of our worst have enjoyed strong > supermajorities. This is the more interesting statement. I'm actually very curious which policies you would identify here. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 26 21:55:55 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:55:55 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:03 PM, William Herrin wrote: > A quick caveat: these comments are intended to be constructive, > suggesting improvement. If any seems otherwise, then I did not explain > myself well and you misunderstood me. > >> One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >> [...] >> Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >> are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >> Process and may only be made with the concurrence >> both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >> Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. > > This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether > or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to > mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it > should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the PDP > without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting > the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for > certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council > that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. Bill, Not really. This facilitates edits to ARIN policy. The PDP is not within the scope of ARIN policy. It's the process by which we develop ARIN policy. That minor logical fallacy aside, that would require a pretty serious abuse of the power simultaneously by both the board and the AC. Further, anything the community didn't like, they could propose policy to change it fairly quickly, so it would be of limited duration. It doesn't require unanimous consent, it's majority of quorum, I believe. Might be majority of the full body. I'm fine with it either way. I suggest you read the minutes of the most recent AC meeting when it comes out to disprove your own statement about lack of unanimous consent above. Sometimes people are obstructive for reasons which seem to have little to do with whether or not the change was actually editorial in nature. IIRC, there were two other changes suggested as administrative in the original staff recommendation to the AC. Both were removed from the motion before the motion was even made at the AC meeting. One was arguably borderline, but since there was some doubt, it was removed. The other one was not so close to the border, IMHO. In general, I believe that the AC is and will remain pretty cautious in its use of this particular capability. Further, if the board alone goes rogue on you (as would be part of what is required to abuse this section), the emergency policy process allows for far more significant changes without even getting consent from the AC. I'm not saying the board is likely to go rogue. I think that's very unlikely and I suspect they are going to be rather conservative about testing the emergency PDP again unless there truly is dire need to do so. >> One. 4.3. Supported by the Community > > 4.3 is a weaker statement than 3.3 in the current PDP which demands > that policy be initiated from the bottom up: by the community at > large, not by its elected and appointed stewards. And after gaining > consensus. > Since the elected stewards are also part of the community at large, I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to draw here. If you are suggesting that my position on the AC should prevent me from actively participating in policy debates, voting at meetings, and/or proposing policy, say so. I firmly believe that such a requirement would be in opposition to the good of the organization or the community. Something worth noting is that I will, with some regularity vote differently when I am in the show of hands at a meeting vs. when I am voting on that same item on the AC docket. The reason is quite simple. When I vote in the meeting in the show of hands, I am voting my own conscience, or, at least the position of my employer or one or more of the other organizations that I represent in the ARIN process(es). When I vote in the AC meeting, OTOH, I am voting what I believe to be the informed will of the community or at least what I perceive to be the best interests of the community. >> 5.2. Developed by Open & Transparent Processes > > This could be better. Open, Transparent and Inclusive. > > >> Two. All ARIN Advisory Council decisions on policy matters >> require an affirmative roll call vote of the majority of the >> members of the full Advisory Council, unless otherwise specified. > > Does this mean that a majority of a quorum is not acceptable, it must > in fact be 8 of the 15 members of the AC? Yes. Currently, that is already required for final actions on draft policies. This would further extend that requirement. >> Two. 2. Policy Proposal Evaluation >> >> During Policy Proposal evaluation, the Advisory >> Council does not evaluate the merits of Policy >> Proposal other than to confirm that the Policy >> Proposal is within scope of the Policy Development >> Process and contains a clear statement of the >> problem and suggested changes to number >> resource policy text. > > I *really* like this. > > >> A submitted Policy Proposal >> that is not rejected upon evaluation as being >> out of scope remains on the docket as a Policy >> Proposal until it is withdrawn by originator or >> accepted by the Advisory Council as a Draft >> Policy. > > This text doesn't flow well into the next section. There's too big a > conceptual gap from "_the proposal_ is on the docket and under > consideration by the AC" to the next part where the "Advisory Council > participates in and encourages the discussion of the _Draft > Policies_." If we can't abandon it, then all that is left is to leave it on the docket until the author and/or the AC make sufficient edits to select it as a draft policy. Once it is selected as a draft policy, then it moves forward. > When should the AC accept a proposal as a draft? Should a proposal > really remain on the docket forever because the AC dislikes it and the > author is too stubborn to withdraw it? Does the AC "not evaluate the > merits of Policy Proposal" like it says in the section's first > paragraph or can they consider whether they think it's a good policy > before accepting it as a draft? We don't reject it on merit in the first step. In the second step, our job is to work with the author to refine it into draft policy. Given the ability to petition the proposal to draft policy status, there is a safety valve to prevent the AC from letting it languish. > Is it possible to petition a policy proposal to draft status or is it > stuck in limbo if the AC agrees its properly constructed but dislikes > it? > It can be petitioned as I understand things. >> 6. Confirming Community Support for Recommended Draft Policies >> The Advisory Council confirms community >> support for Recommended Draft Policies, and >> this support may be ascertained by a show of >> hands during a Public Policy Consultation. > > And... anything else? Or is a show of hands at an in-person PPC the > only approved way of ascertaining community support? Needs > improvement. Agreed. > > >> 7. Last Call >> If the Advisory Council sends a Recommended Draft >> Policy different than the Recommended Draft Policy >> presented during the Public Policy Consultation, then >> the Advisory Council will provide a detailed explanation >> for all changes to the text and these specific changes >> must have been discussed during the community >> consultation at the Public Policy Meeting. > > A laudable attempt at saving the AC's ability to revise the proposal > post-meeting but completely impractical. How does one discuss > "specific changes" to a written document at a 200-person meeting? > Throw it up on a screen and type new sentences? Or toss around vague > ideas and write specific text later? Even if you solve that, the > concept itself is defective: the better way to improve a policy will > come after everybody has slept on it. After the meeting. Usually these are changes that have been well considered, but, after text freeze as for some reason, text freeze tends to be when the community actually starts reading the draft policies. >> 2.2. Petition for Recommended Status >> 2.3. Petition for Last Call > > There appears to be a hole here. A petitioner can advance a draft to > recommended status. If the AC then radically changes its text and > advances the changed version to last call, the petitioner does not > appear to have any recourse through which he can advance the original > to last call. The petitioner can only act if the AC fails to advance > any form of his proposal to last call. I would say that was probably an oversight and agree that it should be added back in. Owen > > Or have I misread it? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 26 22:20:13 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:20:13 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> Message-ID: <572FCC56-C14C-43A5-8F88-71A9DDDF0D68@delong.com> On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>> Decisions to send Recommended Draft Policies to the ARIN >>> Board shall be made by the affirmative roll call vote of the two thirds of >>> the members of the full Advisory Council. >> >> Do folks feel that is an improvement over the current PDP (which requires a >> simple majority of the full AC to send a draft policy to the board, with no >> time limit)? Or is that too high a bar? > > I like it and I'd like to see the concept generalized. Consensus means > converting the opposition to support. A policy should meet a > progression of increasingly higher demonstrations of support to be > adopted. A low hurdle to enter draft stage and formal discussion. A > higher hurdle to get to last call. And a higher still hurdle to go to > the board. > > While not perfect by any means, that seems like it would be more > likely to track the general consent of the community than a simple > majority vote. > > > Here's the thing... if you believe that the ends don't justify the > means (and you should; it's self-evident) then you have to accept the > converse: the integrity of a process is more important than any single > result. ARIN desires to represent the will of the address-using > community. The process of codifying that will should reflect that, > even if the community's will is sometimes contradictory, suboptimal > and on rare occasion self destructive. If the process is trustworthy, > the community can correct any mistakes. > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> OTOH, some of our best and most useful policies have been controversial ones >> that passed by narrow margins > > Name three and I'll tell you how each has damaged the address > management process where a little more care might have avoided the > problems. Lacking a convenient way to delve through the archives hunting for close AC votes, I don't have enough time to do this on a timely basis, so I'll leave it alone. > >> while some of our worst have enjoyed strong >> supermajorities. > > This is the more interesting statement. I'm actually very curious > which policies you would identify here. > 2007-23 (I'll note that at the time it seemed like a good idea and I supported this one). 2009-8 (same situation as above). 2012-3 (maybe a controversial selection, but there was little opposition in the AC in spite of significant opposition on PPML) Owen From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 26 23:04:02 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:04:02 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:03 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> A quick caveat: these comments are intended to be constructive, >> suggesting improvement. If any seems otherwise, then I did not explain >> myself well and you misunderstood me. >> >>> One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >>> [...] >>> Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >>> are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >>> Process and may only be made with the concurrence >>> both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >>> Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. >> >> This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether >> or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to >> mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it >> should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the [NRPM] >> without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting >> the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for >> certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council >> that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. > > Not really. This facilitates edits to ARIN policy. The PDP is not within > the scope of ARIN policy. It's the process by which we develop ARIN > policy. Typo. I meant to write NRPM not PDP. > That minor logical fallacy aside, that would require a pretty serious > abuse of the power simultaneously by both the board and the AC. Is there some compelling interest served by making the process abusable, however unlikely actual abuse may seem? > It doesn't require unanimous consent, it's majority of quorum, I believe. > Might be majority of the full body. I'm fine with it either way. Making it unaninmous consent would probably solve the problem. If 22 people agree something is purely editorial there's a decently good chance they're right. And for everything else there's the normal policy development process. >>> One. 4.3. Supported by the Community >> 4.3 is a weaker statement than 3.3 in the current PDP which demands >> that policy be initiated from the bottom up: by the community at >> large, not by its elected and appointed stewards. And after gaining >> consensus. > > Since the elected stewards are also part of the community at large, > I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to draw here. If you are > suggesting that my position on the AC should prevent me from actively > participating in policy debates, voting at meetings, and/or proposing > policy, say so. Heaven forfend! No, there's no hidden meaning in my words. I just think it's a weaker statement than what's in the current PDP. We *should* make a strong statement that policy is developed for the community BY the community. This text forgot the "by the community" part. >>> A submitted Policy Proposal >>> that is not rejected upon evaluation as being >>> out of scope remains on the docket as a Policy >>> Proposal until it is withdrawn by originator or >>> accepted by the Advisory Council as a Draft >>> Policy. >> >> This text doesn't flow well into the next section. There's too big a >> conceptual gap from "_the proposal_ is on the docket and under >> consideration by the AC" to the next part where the "Advisory Council >> participates in and encourages the discussion of the _Draft >> Policies_." > > If we can't abandon it, then all that is left is to leave it on the docket until > the author and/or the AC make sufficient edits to select it as a draft policy. > Once it is selected as a draft policy, then it moves forward. Clarify this in the document. >> When should the AC accept a proposal as a draft? Should a proposal >> really remain on the docket forever because the AC dislikes it and the >> author is too stubborn to withdraw it? Does the AC "not evaluate the >> merits of Policy Proposal" like it says in the section's first >> paragraph or can they consider whether they think it's a good policy >> before accepting it as a draft? > > We don't reject it on merit in the first step. In the second step, our job > is to work with the author to refine it into draft policy. Given the ability > to petition the proposal to draft policy status, there is a safety valve > to prevent the AC from letting it languish. Clarify this in the document. >> Is it possible to petition a policy proposal to draft status or is it >> stuck in limbo if the AC agrees its properly constructed but dislikes >> it? > > It can be petitioned as I understand things. How? I didn't find that in the text describing the petition process. >>> 6. Confirming Community Support for Recommended Draft Policies >>> The Advisory Council confirms community >>> support for Recommended Draft Policies, and >>> this support may be ascertained by a show of >>> hands during a Public Policy Consultation. >> >> And... anything else? Or is a show of hands at an in-person PPC the >> only approved way of ascertaining community support? Needs >> improvement. > > Agreed. > >> >> >>> 7. Last Call >>> If the Advisory Council sends a Recommended Draft >>> Policy different than the Recommended Draft Policy >>> presented during the Public Policy Consultation, then >>> the Advisory Council will provide a detailed explanation >>> for all changes to the text and these specific changes >>> must have been discussed during the community >>> consultation at the Public Policy Meeting. >> >> A laudable attempt at saving the AC's ability to revise the proposal >> post-meeting but completely impractical. How does one discuss >> "specific changes" to a written document at a 200-person meeting? >> Throw it up on a screen and type new sentences? Or toss around vague >> ideas and write specific text later? Even if you solve that, the >> concept itself is defective: the better way to improve a policy will >> come after everybody has slept on it. After the meeting. > > Usually these are changes that have been well considered, but, after > text freeze as for some reason, text freeze tends to be when the community > actually starts reading the draft policies. Yeah, I can see that. Still, we have exactly one example where post meeting, pre last call edits caused a major row. The proposed text doesn't look like it would have prevented or even seriously impeded that error. Needs more work. > >>> 2.2. ?Petition for Recommended Status >>> 2.3. ?Petition for Last Call >> >> There appears to be a hole here. A petitioner can advance a draft to >> recommended status. If the AC then radically changes its text and >> advances the changed version to last call, the petitioner does not >> appear to have any recourse through which he can advance the original >> to last call. The petitioner can only act if the AC fails to advance >> any form of his proposal to last call. > > I would say that was probably an oversight and agree that it should be > added back in. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 26 23:04:14 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:04:14 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: <572FCC56-C14C-43A5-8F88-71A9DDDF0D68@delong.com> References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> <572FCC56-C14C-43A5-8F88-71A9DDDF0D68@delong.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> while some of our worst have enjoyed strong >>> supermajorities. >> >> This is the more interesting statement. I'm actually very curious >> which policies you would identify here. > > 2007-23 (I'll note that at the time it seemed like a good idea and I supported this one). Really? There was nothing even vaguely close to agreement on any other approach. Still isn't. Runout wasn't going to wait for us. And if I recall the dissent, it was more in preference to some particular alternative rather than objections to this approach per se. This policy brought the IANA free pool to an orderly end where nobody accused anybody else of gaming the final allocation. Imagine if APNIC had requested the last two /8's and they genuinely were the *last* two /8's! I'm not sure how 2007-23 could be viewed as bad policy, even with 20/20 hindsight. > 2009-8 (same situation as above). I continue to think this is wise policy. It *should* be harder to get addresses from the remaining free pool than through transfer. That has encouraged the transfer process to develop before we hit rock bottom emergency all gone. > 2012-3 (maybe a controversial selection, but there > was little opposition in the AC in spite of significant > opposition on PPML) I'll give you this one. I think the policy was reasonable but the community consent wasn't there. It should have gone back in the drawer for a cycle or two and then come back out when the idea was no longer startling. It shouldn't have passed by a majority let alone a supermajority. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 00:58:35 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:58:35 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FE9F1BE.30002@arin.net> <572FCC56-C14C-43A5-8F88-71A9DDDF0D68@delong.com> Message-ID: <5A52AA0E-64F9-4BE1-9C53-C9871C1E5241@delong.com> On Jun 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> while some of our worst have enjoyed strong >>>> supermajorities. >>> >>> This is the more interesting statement. I'm actually very curious >>> which policies you would identify here. >> >> 2007-23 (I'll note that at the time it seemed like a good idea and I supported this one). > > Really? There was nothing even vaguely close to agreement on any other > approach. Still isn't. Runout wasn't going to wait for us. And if I > recall the dissent, it was more in preference to some particular > alternative rather than objections to this approach per se. > The belief when this passed was that it would not significantly skew the runout dates of the big-three RIRs to be very far from each other. Unfortunately, it put APNIC way first, RIPE a distant second and ARIN a very distant third. That might seem great for ARIN at the moment, but it's really bad for the internet over-all. The goal of the policy was actually to provide a relatively even runout date across the board. We failed to achieve the policy goal and I suspect we have only begun to see the true consequences of this. > This policy brought the IANA free pool to an orderly end where nobody > accused anybody else of gaming the final allocation. Imagine if APNIC > had requested the last two /8's and they genuinely were the *last* two > /8's! I'm not sure how 2007-23 could be viewed as bad policy, even > with 20/20 hindsight. We can agree to disagree. I know you seem to believe that ARIN running out last is perfectly fine and that you think APNIC squandered its resources. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with you. >> 2009-8 (same situation as above). > > I continue to think this is wise policy. It *should* be harder to get > addresses from the remaining free pool than through transfer. That has > encouraged the transfer process to develop before we hit rock bottom > emergency all gone. > We pulled the trigger too early and that's exacerbating the problems with 2007-23. We should have set the trigger when ARIN got down to the last /8, not when ARIN received it. The policy itself isn't bad, but the timing as we implemented it was terrible. > >> 2012-3 (maybe a controversial selection, but there >> was little opposition in the AC in spite of significant >> opposition on PPML) > > I'll give you this one. I think the policy was reasonable but the > community consent wasn't there. It should have gone back in the drawer > for a cycle or two and then come back out when the idea was no longer > startling. It shouldn't have passed by a majority let alone a > supermajority. > Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 01:24:01 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:24:01 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:03 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> A quick caveat: these comments are intended to be constructive, >>> suggesting improvement. If any seems otherwise, then I did not explain >>> myself well and you misunderstood me. >>> >>>> One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >>>> [...] >>>> Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >>>> are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >>>> Process and may only be made with the concurrence >>>> both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >>>> Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. >>> >>> This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether >>> or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to >>> mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it >>> should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the [NRPM] >>> without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting >>> the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for >>> certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council >>> that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. >> >> Not really. This facilitates edits to ARIN policy. The PDP is not within >> the scope of ARIN policy. It's the process by which we develop ARIN >> policy. > > Typo. I meant to write NRPM not PDP. > > >> That minor logical fallacy aside, that would require a pretty serious >> abuse of the power simultaneously by both the board and the AC. > > Is there some compelling interest served by making the process > abusable, however unlikely actual abuse may seem? > Yes... Fixing a simple typo in the NRPM should take a policy cycle to get done. >> It doesn't require unanimous consent, it's majority of quorum, I believe. >> Might be majority of the full body. I'm fine with it either way. > > Making it unaninmous consent would probably solve the problem. If 22 > people agree something is purely editorial there's a decently good > chance they're right. And for everything else there's the normal > policy development process. > I could go for a supermajority, but unanimity in the AC is far more difficult than it should be and allowing a single member to hold up resolving a minor correction that doesn't change the policy intent doesn't make sense to me. > > >>>> One. 4.3. Supported by the Community >>> 4.3 is a weaker statement than 3.3 in the current PDP which demands >>> that policy be initiated from the bottom up: by the community at >>> large, not by its elected and appointed stewards. And after gaining >>> consensus. >> >> Since the elected stewards are also part of the community at large, >> I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to draw here. If you are >> suggesting that my position on the AC should prevent me from actively >> participating in policy debates, voting at meetings, and/or proposing >> policy, say so. > > Heaven forfend! No, there's no hidden meaning in my words. I just > think it's a weaker statement than what's in the current PDP. We > *should* make a strong statement that policy is developed for the > community BY the community. This text forgot the "by the community" > part. I can live with it, but I think it's the same either way. > > >>>> A submitted Policy Proposal >>>> that is not rejected upon evaluation as being >>>> out of scope remains on the docket as a Policy >>>> Proposal until it is withdrawn by originator or >>>> accepted by the Advisory Council as a Draft >>>> Policy. >>> >>> This text doesn't flow well into the next section. There's too big a >>> conceptual gap from "_the proposal_ is on the docket and under >>> consideration by the AC" to the next part where the "Advisory Council >>> participates in and encourages the discussion of the _Draft >>> Policies_." >> >> If we can't abandon it, then all that is left is to leave it on the docket until >> the author and/or the AC make sufficient edits to select it as a draft policy. >> Once it is selected as a draft policy, then it moves forward. > > Clarify this in the document. It seems clear to me. >>> When should the AC accept a proposal as a draft? Should a proposal >>> really remain on the docket forever because the AC dislikes it and the >>> author is too stubborn to withdraw it? Does the AC "not evaluate the >>> merits of Policy Proposal" like it says in the section's first >>> paragraph or can they consider whether they think it's a good policy >>> before accepting it as a draft? >> >> We don't reject it on merit in the first step. In the second step, our job >> is to work with the author to refine it into draft policy. Given the ability >> to petition the proposal to draft policy status, there is a safety valve >> to prevent the AC from letting it languish. > > Clarify this in the document. > Again, seems clear to me. Propose wording if you like. > >>> Is it possible to petition a policy proposal to draft status or is it >>> stuck in limbo if the AC agrees its properly constructed but dislikes >>> it? >> >> It can be petitioned as I understand things. > > How? I didn't find that in the text describing the petition process. I'd have to review it again, but, there certainly should be a petition potential at each step. >>>> 6. Confirming Community Support for Recommended Draft Policies >>>> The Advisory Council confirms community >>>> support for Recommended Draft Policies, and >>>> this support may be ascertained by a show of >>>> hands during a Public Policy Consultation. >>> >>> And... anything else? Or is a show of hands at an in-person PPC the >>> only approved way of ascertaining community support? Needs >>> improvement. >> >> Agreed. >> >>> >>> >>>> 7. Last Call >>>> If the Advisory Council sends a Recommended Draft >>>> Policy different than the Recommended Draft Policy >>>> presented during the Public Policy Consultation, then >>>> the Advisory Council will provide a detailed explanation >>>> for all changes to the text and these specific changes >>>> must have been discussed during the community >>>> consultation at the Public Policy Meeting. >>> >>> A laudable attempt at saving the AC's ability to revise the proposal >>> post-meeting but completely impractical. How does one discuss >>> "specific changes" to a written document at a 200-person meeting? >>> Throw it up on a screen and type new sentences? Or toss around vague >>> ideas and write specific text later? Even if you solve that, the >>> concept itself is defective: the better way to improve a policy will >>> come after everybody has slept on it. After the meeting. >> >> Usually these are changes that have been well considered, but, after >> text freeze as for some reason, text freeze tends to be when the community >> actually starts reading the draft policies. > > Yeah, I can see that. Still, we have exactly one example > where post meeting, pre last call edits caused a major row. The > proposed text doesn't look like it would have prevented or even > seriously impeded that error. Needs more work. I disagree. Just because it's possible to make a mistake doesn't mean the process needs improvement. A lot of this process involves judgment and when you involve judgment, you sometimes get errors and lapses of judgment. Taking away judgment still doesn't necessarily improve things. Owen From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 27 20:34:57 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:34:57 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FEBA6B1.2070304@umn.edu> On 6/26/12 20:03 CDT, William Herrin wrote: > A quick caveat: these comments are intended to be constructive, > suggesting improvement. If any seems otherwise, then I did not explain > myself well and you misunderstood me. > >> One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >> [...] >> Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >> are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >> Process and may only be made with the concurrence >> both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >> Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. > > This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether > or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to > mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it > should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the PDP > without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting > the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for > certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council > that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. I'm glad PDP was a typo, and you meant NRPM. So, I'm not hearing you say we don't need or want an editorial change process for the NRPM that is simpler than the full the PDP. But I think I hear you saying that we need public notice of what the proposed changes are sometime before they are made. If there is any real debate then it probably isn't an editorial change. But without notice, people can only object after the fact, which then crates a big problem. I think what was ARIN-prop-169 is an excellent example. We shouldn't necessarily need a proposal to initiate the process. However, by having this one initiated by a proposal there was public notice and an opportunity for people to raise any objections which there were none. So, I think public notice needs to be added as this part of the process. I don't think this level of detail needs to be in the PDP, but I think the procedure should look something like this for a successful editorial change; 1. Staff formally prepares proposed editorial change 2. AC provides concurrence to proposed editorial change 3. Public Notice is provided of proposed editorial change 4. Board provides concurrence to proposed editorial change 5. Staff incorporates editorial change in the next revision of NRPM I would propose the following change to the third paragraph of section 3.1 of the proposed PDP, adding "public notice and"; Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature are beyond the scope of the Policy Development Process and may only be made with public notice and the concurrence both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. I think this restores the necessary openness and transparency to the process, and the procedural details don't need to be in the PDP. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 22:07:37 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:07:37 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: <4FEBA6B1.2070304@umn.edu> References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FEBA6B1.2070304@umn.edu> Message-ID: <488EAE96-0B3F-42D4-900B-1ACB4950B8C9@delong.com> On Jun 27, 2012, at 5:34 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 6/26/12 20:03 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >> A quick caveat: these comments are intended to be constructive, >> suggesting improvement. If any seems otherwise, then I did not explain >> myself well and you misunderstood me. >> >>> One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >>> [...] >>> Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >>> are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >>> Process and may only be made with the concurrence >>> both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >>> Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. >> >> This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether >> or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to >> mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it >> should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the PDP >> without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting >> the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for >> certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council >> that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. > > I'm glad PDP was a typo, and you meant NRPM. > > So, I'm not hearing you say we don't need or want an editorial change process for the NRPM that is simpler than the full the PDP. But I think I hear you saying that we need public notice of what the proposed changes are sometime before they are made. If there is any real debate then it probably isn't an editorial change. But without notice, people can only object after the fact, which then crates a big problem. > > I think what was ARIN-prop-169 is an excellent example. We shouldn't necessarily need a proposal to initiate the process. However, by having this one initiated by a proposal there was public notice and an opportunity for people to raise any objections which there were none. So, I think public notice needs to be added as this part of the process. > > I don't think this level of detail needs to be in the PDP, but I think the procedure should look something like this for a successful editorial change; > > 1. Staff formally prepares proposed editorial change > 2. AC provides concurrence to proposed editorial change > 3. Public Notice is provided of proposed editorial change > 4. Board provides concurrence to proposed editorial change > 5. Staff incorporates editorial change in the next revision of NRPM I like this, but I'd like to propose that we reverse steps 2 and 3. If we want to provide public notice, I would prefer that the AC be allowed to consider any response to that public notice in their decision. > > I would propose the following change to the third paragraph of section 3.1 of the proposed PDP, adding "public notice and"; > > Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature are beyond the scope of the Policy Development Process and may only be made with public notice and the concurrence both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. > > I think this restores the necessary openness and transparency to the process, and the procedural details don't need to be in the PDP. > +1 Owen From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 28 00:17:38 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:17:38 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: <4FEBA6B1.2070304@umn.edu> References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FEBA6B1.2070304@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM, David Farmer wrote: > On 6/26/12 20:03 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >>> One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >>> [...] >>> Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >>> are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >>> Process and may only be made with the concurrence >>> both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >>> Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. >> >> This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether >> or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to >> mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it >> should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the [NRPM] >> without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting >> the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for >> certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council >> that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. > > So, I'm not hearing you say we don't need or want an editorial change > process for the NRPM that is simpler than the full the PDP. Hi David, I'm not convinced it's needed but if there's a safe way to do it I'm not against it either. >?But I think I > hear you saying that we need public notice of what the proposed changes are > sometime before they are made. If there is any real debate then it probably > isn't an editorial change. ?But without notice, people can only object after > the fact, which then crates a big problem. Bingo. And can't effectively object since it takes a proposal and full policy cycle to reverse the change. > I don't think this level of detail needs to be in the PDP, but I think the > procedure should look something like this for a successful editorial change; > > 1. Staff formally prepares proposed editorial change > 2. AC provides concurrence to proposed editorial change > 3. Public Notice is provided of proposed editorial change > 4. Board provides concurrence to proposed editorial change > 5. Staff incorporates editorial change in the next revision of NRPM Make it easy on yourselves: 1. Post an enumerated diff showing the changes to the PPML. "Enumerated" in the sense that each change is assigned a number. 2. At least 7 days later (at the next regular AC meeting): Folks, please list by number any of the changes you believe are more than editorial. Don't explain; just list. 3. Here's the list of change numbers which remain active (the ones none of you said to strike). Are there any more which are objectionable? 4. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining list of editorial changes be approved. Without objection, so ordered. 5. At the next BoT meeting, do the same. 6. All unanimously affirmed changes are made. The rest can be introduced as a policy proposal or proposals if desired. Done. Nothing to debate. The changes which really are editorial don't get hung up by one or two that aren't. Strike the ones anybody on the AC or BoT considers substantive and then affirm the rest. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 28 00:25:45 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:25:45 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FEBA6B1.2070304@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> On 6/26/12 20:03 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >>>> One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >>>> [...] >>>> Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >>>> are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >>>> Process and may only be made with the concurrence >>>> both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >>>> Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. >>> >>> This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether >>> or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to >>> mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it >>> should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the [NRPM] >>> without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting >>> the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for >>> certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council >>> that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. >> >> So, I'm not hearing you say we don't need or want an editorial change >> process for the NRPM that is simpler than the full the PDP. > > Hi David, > > I'm not convinced it's needed but if there's a safe way to do it I'm > not against it either. > >> But I think I >> hear you saying that we need public notice of what the proposed changes are >> sometime before they are made. If there is any real debate then it probably >> isn't an editorial change. But without notice, people can only object after >> the fact, which then crates a big problem. > > Bingo. And can't effectively object since it takes a proposal and full > policy cycle to reverse the change. > > >> I don't think this level of detail needs to be in the PDP, but I think the >> procedure should look something like this for a successful editorial change; >> >> 1. Staff formally prepares proposed editorial change >> 2. AC provides concurrence to proposed editorial change >> 3. Public Notice is provided of proposed editorial change >> 4. Board provides concurrence to proposed editorial change >> 5. Staff incorporates editorial change in the next revision of NRPM > > Make it easy on yourselves: > > 1. Post an enumerated diff showing the changes to the PPML. > "Enumerated" in the sense that each change is assigned a number. > > 2. At least 7 days later (at the next regular AC meeting): Folks, > please list by number any of the changes you believe are more than > editorial. Don't explain; just list. > > 3. Here's the list of change numbers which remain active (the ones > none of you said to strike). Are there any more which are > objectionable? > > 4. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining list of editorial > changes be approved. Without objection, so ordered. I would prefer we stick with the existing role call vote. Though one could argue this isn't a policy matter, since what we're actually voting on is whether or not it is a policy matter, I would suggest the role call vote is a valid safeguard. > > 5. At the next BoT meeting, do the same. > > 6. All unanimously affirmed changes are made. The rest can be > introduced as a policy proposal or proposals if desired. > > Done. Nothing to debate. The changes which really are editorial don't > get hung up by one or two that aren't. Strike the ones anybody on the > AC or BoT considers substantive and then affirm the rest. > The problem I see with this is that a single obstructionist, whether well intentioned or otherwise, whether for reasons of belief that the change is not editorial or merely to cause problems would be able to force changes through the entire policy process every time. I'm fine with requiring a supermajority, but unanimity likely renders the process useless. Owen From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 01:44:13 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:44:13 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FEBA6B1.2070304@umn.edu> Message-ID: On 6/27/12, Owen DeLong wrote: [snip] > I'm fine with requiring a supermajority, but unanimity likely renders > the process useless. Supermajority is problematic. Actually, even unanimity of a small committee is not a sufficient safeguard. The NRPM is a policy document; there is really no such thing as an "editorial" change to such a document that does not effect multiple people's interpretation of the policy. We've already seen cases where ARIN staff and others have interpreted policies in ways the community didn't intend. If the change were really "editorial"; it would be an unnecessary change. If the change is only unnecessary or aesthetic, then it is not a major downside if the change is delayed. All changes should find community consensus before they are allowed. Providing backdoors to allow community developed policies to be quietly "editorially" revised in a manner to reinforce or "clarify" someone's interpretation into policy that might be inconsistent with the community's wishes is a really bad idea. > Owen -- -JH From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jun 28 02:17:21 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:17:21 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder In-Reply-To: References: <4FCE4A27.5080700@arin.net> <4FEBA6B1.2070304@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FEBF6F1.7050806@umn.edu> On 6/27/12 23:17 CDT, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> On 6/26/12 20:03 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >>>> One. 3.1. Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services >>>> [...] >>>> Changes to policy that are purely editorial in nature >>>> are beyond the scope of the Policy Development >>>> Process and may only be made with the concurrence >>>> both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of >>>> Trustees regarding their non-substantial nature. >>> >>> This is a dangerous sentence. I foresee bitter arguments over whether >>> or not a change was substantive. Even if "concurrence" is intended to >>> mean "unanimous consent" of the board and council (in which case it >>> should probably say so), this statement facilitates edits to the [NRPM] >>> without any process for prior public review, directly contradicting >>> the objective of One 5.2 (Open & Transparent Processes). And for >>> certain if you can't get unanimous consent of the board and council >>> that a change is "purely editorial" then it isn't. >> >> So, I'm not hearing you say we don't need or want an editorial change >> process for the NRPM that is simpler than the full the PDP. > > Hi David, > > I'm not convinced it's needed but if there's a safe way to do it I'm > not against it either. More than once the community has said they didn't want to be bothered with debating changes through the PDP that were not intended to change the intent of policy, and were really only editorial. To me that means we need something like this. That is why the Board added it, because the community said to. But it needed to get it documented in this update of the PDP. >> But I think I >> hear you saying that we need public notice of what the proposed changes are >> sometime before they are made. If there is any real debate then it probably >> isn't an editorial change. But without notice, people can only object after >> the fact, which then crates a big problem. > > Bingo. And can't effectively object since it takes a proposal and full > policy cycle to reverse the change. Yep, I short handed that with "creates a big problem." But typoed it. :) >> I don't think this level of detail needs to be in the PDP, but I think the >> procedure should look something like this for a successful editorial change; >> >> 1. Staff formally prepares proposed editorial change >> 2. AC provides concurrence to proposed editorial change >> 3. Public Notice is provided of proposed editorial change >> 4. Board provides concurrence to proposed editorial change >> 5. Staff incorporates editorial change in the next revision of NRPM > > Make it easy on yourselves: > > 1. Post an enumerated diff showing the changes to the PPML. > "Enumerated" in the sense that each change is assigned a number. > > 2. At least 7 days later (at the next regular AC meeting): Folks, > please list by number any of the changes you believe are more than > editorial. Don't explain; just list. > > 3. Here's the list of change numbers which remain active (the ones > none of you said to strike). Are there any more which are > objectionable? > > 4. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining list of editorial > changes be approved. Without objection, so ordered. > > 5. At the next BoT meeting, do the same. > > 6. All unanimously affirmed changes are made. The rest can be > introduced as a policy proposal or proposals if desired. > > Done. Nothing to debate. The changes which really are editorial don't > get hung up by one or two that aren't. Strike the ones anybody on the > AC or BoT considers substantive and then affirm the rest. That's fine by me, the important thing is to add "public notice" into what is there in the proposed PDP. The procedural details for editorial changes are out of scope of the PDP, it need to focus on details of Policy Development Process. Like the PDP says, editorial changes are out of scope of the PDP, but how it is determined that such changes are truly only editorial in nature is an important and relevant detail that should be included in the PDP. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From info at arin.net Fri Jun 29 12:04:35 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:04:35 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN PDP Consultation Now Closed Message-ID: <4FEDD213.9020006@arin.net> On June 28, 2012, ARIN concluded its consultation with the community with regards to the Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) (https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/05-29-2012_pdp.html) for policy development in the ARIN region. ARIN is reviewing the feedback received, and will be reporting back to the community shortly on the next steps in the PDP revision process. ARIN thanks everyone who contributed to this consultation, as it relies heavily on clear direction received through community input. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)