[ARIN-consult] PDP Consultation Reminder

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:17 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> 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