[ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals

Wed Dec 1 15:25:01 EST 2004

Tracey and Bill Thank you for waking up!  ha ha

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to point out the limitting/cutting off
discussion aspect.  But you do have a point that if we focus on the 3
pillars you made...it should go alot smoother.

Here is my suggestion on how we support these 3 Pillars of proposal
discussion.

1.  Well structured = This can be acheived through the slide review I
suggested?

2.  Tighly managed  = Limit the time or quantity of remarks in regards to
already "debated" topics.  Someone would have to be responsible for managing
this and ensuring it is abided by.  They would have to open the mic in an
organized manner.  

Open Mic Management measures:
For example:  Open the mic in order of topic 1, topic 2 then open mic for
new topics within that policy.  obviously we can move to close an old topic
discussion within that policy and move on to topic 2 or open mic for new
topics if no one chooses to debate any given one again.

Topic Debate Management Measures:
For example: Open the mic for 5 minutes per topic debate or instead of time
go for quantity of remaks and allow 1 to 2 pro's and con's of that topic.
This above rule would only apply to previously discussed topics/debates.
New topics not brought up previously would not apply to this rule but would
in essense be discussed until all points within a reasonable expectation are
addressed.  

3.  Directed towards achieving consensus (now)  = Someone keeps track of the
different debated topics and their summaies in a votable manner. Then that
person or the proposal writer leads everyone through an organized vote based
off the topic/debate summaries. Maybe we even change process and take a
break from that proposal being discussed in order to redo the slide and then
make votes based off of the new updated slide?

Thank you for your time
Marla
Electric Lightwave

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:43 AM
To: Azinger, Marla; 'John Brown CT'; 'Scott.Shackelford at cox.com'
Cc: 'ppml at arin.net'
Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals

Marla, all,

I think any mechanism to first, ensure that a policy proposal is processed
'completely' the first time is our most important task.  If it must come
back, again agreed, it should be 'focused' in the best way possible to
expedite its completion.

Limiting discussion at a PP meeting to items that have not been previously
discussed is a little tricky though since there may be people present who
weren't engaged in the first round of discussion.  I think we set ourselves
up for a lot of deserved criticism if we limit debate access to people
wishing to contribute.

I also think that it is crucial the the debate is 1. Well structured, 2.
Tighly managed, 3. Directed towards achieving consensus (now).

I welcome continued input on what contributes to those objectives (or others
that should be included beyond my list of 3).

Bill Darte
ARIN Advisory Council
314 935-7575

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Azinger, Marla
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 1:17 PM
> To: Azinger, Marla; 'John Brown CT'; 'Scott.Shackelford at cox.com'
> Cc: 'randy at psg.com'; 'memsvcs at arin.net'; 'ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: [ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals
> 
> 
> Is any body out there?  Or did everyone pass out from eating 
> to much triptafan in the Turkey?
> 
> Just looking for some input on the posting I sent out on the 23rd.
> 
> Cheers!
> Marla
> Electric Lightwave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Azinger, Marla 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:20 AM
> To: 'John Brown CT'; Scott.Shackelford at cox.com
> Cc: Azinger, Marla; randy at psg.com; memsvcs at arin.net; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I lost track of who made this statement:
> 
> "Further I'd ad that some policy issues aren't related to integer 
> > managment, but maybe related to people management at the 
> policy orgs".
> 
> I heard many people agree with this sentiment above at the 
> last meeting.  We should keep in mint that this "people 
> management" issue tends to get a little carried away at times 
> in order to try and preserve the "spirit of unabashed input from all".
> 
> However, there is another suggestion I put forward for a 
> specific reoccuring experience.  The experience I am 
> referring to is when a proposal has come back to a conference 
> for discussion and vote for a second, third or God help us 
> all a fourth time.  I suggest that when a proposal is coming 
> back for a repeated time that a certain process is put in 
> place.  Here it is:
> 
> 1.  Results of the previouse conference discussion in regards 
> to the re-visited proposal be placed up on a slide.  This 
> slide should include the summary of all discussion points and 
> the results of voting on those discussion points.  I also 
> suggest that discussion points already voted on not be 
> re-debated at the new conference since they have already been 
> voted on.  This way...we could move forward alot faster and 
> not spend every conference discussing the same thing over 
> again and not getting anywhere.
> 
> That is my suggestion.  I'm sure it can be added on or 
> improved...but hopefully this starts the way to moving policy 
> proposal a little faster towards its implementation or its 
> abandonment. 
> 
> 
> Marla Azinger
> Electric Lightwave
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Brown CT [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:50 AM
> To: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com
> Cc: marla_azinger at eli.net; randy at psg.com; memsvcs at arin.net; 
> ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT
> 
> 
> voteing is a subset of participate.  review/comment  should be 
> encouraged prior to vote, imho
> 
> Scott.Shackelford at cox.com wrote:
> > ammend to say:
> > 
> > How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy,
> > review/comment/participate on both existing and or new policy?
> > 
> > And ultimately to become more active in voting which is where I 
> > thought this all started.
> > 
> > 
> > Scott Shackelford
> > IP Engineer/IP Administrator
> > Cox Communications
> > Office: 404-269-7312
> > IM: cypscott
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of 
> > John Brown CT
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:41 AM
> > To: Azinger, Marla
> > Cc: Randy Bush; Member Services; ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] composition of and representation on the BoT
> > 
> > 
> >>"How do we encourage people to read policy, policy 
> proposals and voice
> > 
> > an
> > 
> >>opinion?"
> > 
> > 
> > ammend to say:
> > 
> > How do we encourage people to read policy, propose new policy,
> > review/comment/participate on both existing and or new poilicy?
> > 
> > Further I'd ad that some policy issues aren't related to integer
> > managment, but maybe related to people management at the 
> policy orgs.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 