[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question
Sam Weiler
weiler at tislabs.com
Wed Sep 20 14:36:54 EDT 2006
[I'm 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list