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

[Robert E.Seastrom]

I agree with both Stacy and Andrew.  Micromanagement of operational
issues via the public policy process is not a desirable outcome;
unnecessarily constrains ARIN staff and if done too often will result
in the NRPM becoming huge and unwieldy.  The AC finding that something
"can best be addressed by the ARIN Board of Trustees" is completely
neutral on the proposal's merits, it's just a suggestion that it is
more operational than policy oriented.

The ACSP is a new thing, which should eliminate much of the need to
use the public policy process to get the attention of ARIN's ops side.
I think this represents a step towards goodness and applaud the
efforts of ARIN staffers to bring it to fruition.

As much as I'd like to put in a suggestion that at least one future
ARIN meeting per year ought to take place in an ARIN region country
other than the US and Canada, I suppose I'll restrain myself...

                                        ---Rob

Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> writes:

> [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
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml