[arin-ppml] REMINDER: Proposed PDP Community Review Request

[Scott Leibrand]

Bill,

I don't think the proposed changes would change the informal 
pre-proposal activities at all.  There are no proposals I know of to 
limit pre-proposal discussion on PPML in any way, and we still think 
that such discussion is good and valuable, and should usually occur in 
advance of any formal process.  I also asked Scott Bradner the same 
question a while back, and he confirmed that PPML would remain open.

It's just what happens after a proposal is formally submitted to 
policy at arin.net that would be changing under the proposed new PDP.

Does that address your concerns?

-Scott

William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Member Services <info at arin.net> 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.
> 
> At a glance, it looks like this proposal alters the AC's role from
> being knowledge resources to being traffic cops. Everybody hates
> traffic cops.
> 
> Right now, the policy development process starts with an idea, a
> complaint, a hypothetical that comes as often as not from someone who
> has little or no experience with ARIN. The notion finds its way to
> PPML in one form or another where it gets informally bounced back and
> forth and eventually coalesces into a proposal.
> 
> This is a very healthy, very bottom-up process. It contributes heavily
> to ARIN's relative reputation for trustworthiness (as opposed to say,
> ICANN), even though ARIN is placed in the unfortunate position of
> blocking and rejecting IP address requests from organizations too
> small to play (which is almost everybody).
> 
> This proposed change cuts or at best ignores that vital first step in
> the policy development process. The proposed process -starts- with the
> formal proposal. Do you propose to change the mailing list so that
> discussion starts with a proposal that has passed the AC's first
> review? Police it to assure that participants stay on topic? Limit it
> so that only folks who have achieved enough expertise in ARINology can
> initiate a discussion (by way of a proposal)?
> 
> 
> It would be nice to avoid overlapping and confusing proposals, policy
> text in flux even at the meetings and staff comments about the
> technical soundness of a proposal that arrive too late to discuss
> changes before the meeting. However, in my ever so humble opinion, we
> have a Really Good Process in place already and not one of those goals
> (or all of them together) is worth the RISK of damaging that process
> that a significant overhaul represents.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
>