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

[Sam Weiler]

[I originally sent this to the PPML last night, but ARIN's mail 
servers wouldn't deliver it because it had too many addresses on the 
CC line (to the ten AC candidates).  I'm now resending it without the 
CC's.  While I'm specifically asking the AC candidates to respond, I'd 
certainly welcome comments from others.]

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