[ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder

[William Herrin]

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Proposal until it is withdrawn by originator or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: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004