[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question

[heather skanks]

I don't see anything wrong with the AC reccommending that a problem a policy
proposal is meant to address, might better be solved or addressed in another
manner or in another forum.  In fact, I can think of several reasons for why
the AC should refer a policy proposal to some other forum and I will give
you an example.

Last spring we looked at 2005-9 (4 Byte AS Numbers)   The policy gives clear
dates over the next 3 years and starting in January of 2007, for when ARIN
should begin handing out 32 bit AS's and cease to make a distinction between
32 bit and 16 bit AS's.  However there is no RFC and only a Internet draft
created last fall, that discusses the creation of 4byte AS's.  It seemed to
me that having the policy go through the local registrar's process, was a
bit premature considering that the draft has not gone through the RFC
process in IETF and that no hardware supports it.   This is a case, where I
would have liked to see the AC refer the author to the IETF process to flesh
things out a bit more, and if necessary with a nod that "we support this
idea" ..  As it is now, ARIN can start handing out 32 bit AS's in a little
more than 3 months and the draft is still a "proposed standard" "waiting for
write up"

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/idindex.cgi?command=id_detail&id=6498

The AC, ARIN and the NRPM are just one part of community that guides the use
of number resources.  It seems a responsible thing to do, to evaluate policy
proposals with consideration for the responsibilities of other resources
involved, whether it's IETF, IANA, ICANN, other registrar's, the Board of
Trustees, or ARIN staff, and to refer the author or policy to another
organization when appropriate.

--heather




On 9/20/06, Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> wrote:
>
> ARIN's mail servers rejected this PPML post the first time.  I'm
> resending it just to make sure everyone received it.
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Sam Weiler wrote:
>
> > Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the
> grounds
> > that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board of
> Trustees."
> > [1] [2]
> >
> > I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they
> agree
> > that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because there's
> > a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than, for instance,
> because
> > the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the public policy process).
> >
> > To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these
> particular
> > two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is appropriate to
>
> > reject a policy proposal merely because they see a better path to
> > accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they think the new
> > Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a "better" venue for
> the
> > request than the full public policy process)
> >
> > Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy proposal
> > merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the public policy
> process
> > rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate" for the public policy
> > process -- the public policy process should at least be available as a
> > fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is unacceptable for some
> reason.
> >
> > -- Sam Weiler
> >
> > [1] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-May/005478.html
> > [2] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-June/005505.html
> > [3] http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20061006/ca9d8b4e/attachment.htm>