[ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals

[Azinger, Marla]

Yes.  Either the next day or at the end of the day depending on when that
day the proposal was discussed.  

MA

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:44 PM
To: Azinger, Marla; Bill Darte; 'John Brown CT';
'Scott.Shackelford at cox.com'
Cc: 'ppml at arin.net'
Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals


So, Marla.
Imagine that the first thing on the PP Agenda (1st day) were policy
proposals.  Voting on these proposals was organized overnight for a vote on
the 2nd day...and if some specific preliminaries were needed for 1 or 2
those could be addressed concisely just before the vote.... would this be in
line with what you propose under # 3 below?

bd


> 
> 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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>