[ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals

Wed Dec 1 16:40:39 EST 2004

Yes.  All topic votes within the realm of the proposal will be voted on
leading up to an end all final vote of the proposal itself.

Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard, William L. [mailto:L.Howard at stanleyassociates.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 1:23 PM
To: 'Bill Darte'; Azinger, Marla; 'John Brown CT';
'Scott.Shackelford at cox.com'
Cc: 'ppml at arin.net'
Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals

When you say "voting" . . . ?

I could imagine discussion slides listing key points of a proposal,
toward building incremental consensus.

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Bill Darte
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:44 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.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 