[arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request
John Santos
JOHN at egh.com
Wed May 7 15:21:38 EDT 2008
I have two problems with this proposal. 1) At several places, disatisfied
originators can initiate petitions to bypass AC decisions. The proposal
then describes what happens to "successful petitions". What makes a
petition successful? Does it just need to be entered or does it need
to be seconded or supported by some minimum number of "petition signers?"
Who makes the decision on whether a petition is "successful" or not?
2) At various points (2a, 5a) in the process, the policy proposal
is describe as becoming "owned" by the AC. Does this mean that the
proposal is "property?" Given the current discussions of whether
various actions and activities imply that IP addresses are property,
maybe we should steer clear of that verb, substituting something like
"the AC is responible for the proposal" for "the AC owns the proposal."
Worst case scenario: The A/C slightly changes the wording of a policy
at the draft stage in a way that the originator feels completely
undermines the intent of the proposal (changes a "shall" to a "may",
for example.) The originator petitions to have the draft reconsidered
with his original wording. The A/C sues the originator for copyright
infringement because it "owns" the proposal. :-) :-)
(I know that "owns" is commonly used in business jargon to describe
a project, policy, process, etc. being under the purview of a particular
person or organization, but in my dictionary (Webster's New World
Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, 1968), "own" is quite narrowly
defined as "to posses; hold as personal property; have", and "ownership"
is defined as "legal right of possession; lawful title (to something);
proprietorship")
-- John
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Member Services wrote:
> Your comments are requested on the proposed policy development process!
> Please post your opinions to arin-ppml at arin.net no later than 5 PM EDT,
> Friday, 9 May 2008.
>
> On 8 April 2008, at ARIN XXI in Denver, Colorado, Scott Bradner
> presented a proposed policy development process (PDP) to replace the
> current Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP). The
> proposed PDP is intended to bring forth clear, technically sound and
> useful policy; reduce overlapping policy proposals; require both staff
> and legal assessments before discussion; give adequate opportunity for
> discussion prior to each public policy meeting; and provide a means of
> review prior to possible adoption. The proposed PDP empowers the ARIN
> Advisory Council by shifting its scope from a policy advisory body to a
> policy development body while providing checks and balances and
> maintains an open and transparent process.
>
> The presentation can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/ppm.html
>
> and the webcast can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/ppm.html.
>
> The full text for the proposed PDP can be found in the attached PDF or
> in text below.
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
> ******************************************************
>
> PRINCIPLE
>
> ARIN's Internet Resource Policies are documented community decisions
> that directly determine the rules by which Internet numbering resources
> are managed and administered by ARIN. Internet Resource Policies are
> developed in an open and transparent manner by the Internet community.
>
> Anyone may participate in the process - ARIN membership is not required.
>
> The Policy Development Process (PDP) described in this document defines
> how policy is established in the ARIN region.
>
> The ARIN Board of Trustees adopts proposed Internet Number Resource
> Policies recommended to it by the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) if the
> Board determines that the PDP has been followed, that support and
> consensus for a policy has been reached among the community, and if the
> proposed policies are consistent with ARIN's Articles of Incorporation
> and Bylaws and with the applicable laws and regulations.
>
> It is important to note that Internet Resource Policies are distinctly
> separate from ARIN general business practices and procedures. ARIN's
> general business practices (including fees) and procedures are not
> within the purview of the Policy Development Process. (The ARIN
> Consultation and Suggestion Process can be used to propose changes in
> non-policy areas.)
>
> OVERIVEW
>
> The proposed PDP is intended to bring forth clear, technically sound and
> useful policy; reduce overlapping policy proposals; require both staff
> and legal assessments before discussion; give adequate opportunity for
> discussion prior to each public policy meeting; and provide a means of
> review prior to possible adoption. The proposed PDP empowers the ARIN
> Advisory Council by shifting its scope from a policy advisory body to a
> policy development body while providing checks and balances and
> maintains an open and transparent process.
>
> THE POLICY DEVEOPMENT PROCESS
>
> 1. Proposal. [15 Days, maximum]
>
> a. Submittal. Policy proposals may be submitted at any time.
> Anyone in the community, except a member of the ARIN Board of Trustees
> or a member of ARIN staff can originate a policy proposal. Policy
> proposals must be sent to the policy e-mail address at ARIN. Proposals
> can be submitted at any time but only proposals received more than 70
> days before a Public Policy Meeting (PPM) can generate a draft policy
> for consideration at that meeting.
>
> b. Clarity & Understanding. ARIN staff works with the proposal
> originator to ensure there is clarity and understanding of what is being
> proposed. The staff does not evaluate the proposal itself at this stage,
> their only aim is to make sure that they understand what the proposal is
> proposing and believe that the community will as well.
>
> If understanding is reached the proposal is announced to the community
> via the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and forwarded to the AC.
> The proposal is dropped if the staff and originator cannot reach an
> agreement on clear and understandable text.
>
> In this case, the originator may make a Submittal Petition and send the
> proposal to PPML and request community support to have the proposal
> forwarded to the AC for review. There is no AC action in this phase.
>
>
> 2. Draft Policy. [30 Days, maximum]
>
> a. Development & Evaluation. The AC assumes ownership of all
> proposals. The AC develops and evaluates proposals to only bring forth
> technically sound policies that make a positive contribution to the
> Number Resource Policy Manual. The AC may rewrite, merge, abandon, etc.;
> for example, they may use a proposal as an idea to generate a draft policy.
>
> If the AC intends to move a draft policy forward, it must first submit
> it for staff and legal review (10 days max to perform). The AC must
> understand and address staff and legal comments before a proposal may go
> on. These comments may cause the AC to revise a draft policy.
>
> b. Selection. The AC selects the draft policies that will be
> published for discussion and review by the community on the PPML. The
> relevant staff and legal comments will be published along with each
> draft policy.
>
> If any member of the community, including a proposal originator, is
> dissatisfied with the AC action on a policy proposal they can initiate a
> Discussion Petition to move this particular proposal to the PPML for
> discussion as a draft policy.
>
> A successful petition may result in competing versions of the same draft
> policy. Staff and legal review will be conducted and published for
> successful petitions.
>
>
> 3. Discussion and Review. [25 Days, minimum]
>
> Only draft policies selected by the AC or successfully petitioned are
> open to community discussion and review on PPML. The text of all draft
> policies is frozen at 10 days prior to the Public Policy Meeting. The
> text remains frozen until after the completion of the Public Policy
> Meeting so that a single text for each draft policy is considered at the
> meeting.
>
>
> 4. Public Policy Meeting. The AC presents draft policies at the Public
> Policy Meeting; the successful petitioner presents theirs. Competing
> proposals, if any, will be discussed together. Discussion and votes at
> the meeting are for the consideration of the AC.
>
>
> 5. Consensus.
>
> a. Discussion Evaluation. [30 Days, maximum] At the conclusion
> of the PPM the AC owns all draft policies, including those that were
> successfully petitioned. The AC reviews all draft policies and, taking
> into account discussion both on the PPML and at the Public Policy
> Meeting, decides what to do with each draft policy. The AC may rewrite,
> merge, abandon, send to last call, etc. The results of the AC's
> decisions are announced to the PPML. Draft policies that are not
> abandoned or sent to last call are placed on the AC docket for further
> development and evaluation.
>
> If any member of the community, including a proposal originator, is
> dissatisfied with the AC action on a policy proposal they can initiate a
> Last Call Petition to move this particular proposal to the PPML for last
> call.
>
> b. Last Call [10 Days, minimum] The AC selects draft policies
> that have support both in the community and the AC itself and sends them
> to a last call for comments on the PPML.
>
> The last call period will be for a minimum of 10 days. The AC may decide
> that certain draft proposals may require a longer last call period of
> review, such as those that were revised based on comments received while
> the text was frozen. If the AC sends a draft policy to last call that is
> different from the frozen version, then the AC will explain and justify
> changes to the text.
>
> c. Last Call Review [30 Days, maximum] The AC determines
> consensus for each draft policy by reviewing last call comments,
> revisiting its decision (the AC may rewrite, merge, abandon, etc.), and
> determining readiness for consideration by the Board of Trustees. If the
> AC modifies a draft policy, it will be sent for another round of last
> call or may be placed back on the AC's docket for further development
> and evaluation.
>
> If any member of the community is dissatisfied with the AC action on a
> policy proposal they can initiate a Board of Trustees Consideration
> Petition to move this particular proposal for consideration by the Board
> of Trustees.
>
> The results of the AC's decisions are announced to the PPML. The AC
> forwards the draft policies that it supports to the Board of Trustees
> for consideration.
>
> 6. Board of Trustee Review. [30 Days, maximum] The ARIN Board of
> Trustees reviews and evaluates each draft policy presented to it. The
> Board examines each draft policy in terms of fiduciary risk, liability
> risk, conformity to law, development in accordance with the ARIN PDP,
> and adherence to the ARIN Articles of Incorporation and bylaws. The
> Board may adopt, reject or remand draft policies to the AC. Rejections
> will include an explanation. Remands will include an explanation and a
> recommendation. The Board may also seek clarification from the AC
> without remanding the draft policy. The results of the Board's decision
> are announced to the community via PPML.
>
> 7. Implementation. The expected implementation date of the policy is
> announced at the time that adoption of the policy is announced. ARIN
> staff updates to include the adopted policy into the Number Resource
> Policy Manual and implements and publishes a new version of the manual.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list