[ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals
Howard, William L.
L.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Thu Dec 2 08:59:58 EST 2004
It may seem like a fine distinction, but. . .
We don't vote at public policy meetings. Elections begin after
public policy meetings. ARIN facilitates regional ASO
elections, which may coincide with ARIN meetings.
We don't vote on policy proposals in whole or in part, because a
key part of the policy process is the participation of the
public on the mailing lists. Consensus at a meeting may be
outweighed by lack of consensus on mailing lists. When we use
a show of hands to get a sense of the room, it's to determine
whether there's a large amount of silent support for or
opposition to a proposed policy. This is input for the AC to
judge the level of consensus.
My description of what you're suggesting would be:
1. The text of the proposed policy is read. If the proposed
policy is to verbose to read, it's probably too complicated
to consider in a public meeting.
2. Einar describes the discussion on the mailing list.
3. Key points (as identified by the AC) are presented,
bulletized, for discussion. The length of discussion on
each is limited.
4. Any additional points for discussion are raised.
This would give the AC clearer feedback on what parts of a
proposal (failed to) receive(d) support, so they could
adjust the wording as needed.
Lee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Azinger, Marla [mailto:marla_azinger at eli.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:41 PM
> To: 'Howard, William L.'; 'Bill Darte'; 'John Brown CT';
> 'Scott.Shackelford at cox.com'
> Cc: 'ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: RE: [ppml] RE: Process improvement for Repeat Proposals
>
>
> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list