[ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder

Tue Jun 26 23:04:02 EDT 2012

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> 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.

<chuckle> 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: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004