[ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:09 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> 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 <owen at delong.com> 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