[arin-ppml] Proposed Revision to the ARIN Policy Development Process

Sam Weiler weiler at tislabs.com
Fri May 9 11:40:56 EDT 2008

[resending; sorry for any duplicates]

In general, I support these proposed changes -- I think they'll result 
in better policy proposals, which helps us all.  Thanks to the board 
for proposing them.

But the specifics need some work.

First, this proposal doesn't do enough to 1) make the process more 
responsive and 2) make the PPML more relevant (and, by implication, 
the physical public policy meetings less dominant in the policy 
process).  As a first step, I suggest allowing the AC (or a 
petitioner) discretion to advance a policy without discussion at a 
meeting.  I look forward to other suggestions the community may have 
towards these ends, also.

Second, I agree with Owen that the petition threshholds are too high. 
The first petition step should be removed, as others have suggested. 
The second should be no higher than the current threshold, at 4.  I'm 
dubious about the value of adding another petition step (beyond the 
existing two).  Can we dodge one of the last two steps entirely and, 
much like the current IRPEP, have anything that passes a last call 
petition go directly to the board (or go to the board at the 
discretion of the successful petitioner)?

Third, I think the document needs some editorial attention, possibly 
from counsel, prior to adoption.  I'm also happy to work with the 

-- Sam

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list