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

[Brenden Kuerbis]

Hi,

Hoping the list will consider some comments from an observer of Internet
governance processes.

I would echo the concerns voiced, real or imagined, about staff influence in
the proposed PDP. The initial staff review of an originator's proposal
should not unduly influence whether the proposal advances for consideration
by an elected body. (Actually, while I understand the intent, I'm not sure
why such a staff check is even needed at this point. Any originator who
_really_ wants their proposal to be considered seriously has incentive to
work with staff to get language correct, etc., right?)  The broader
institutional-design point is you want to ensure that accountable bodies
(like the AC and Board) are making decisions in the PDP, and that their
accountability is closely linked to those affected by public policy (i.e.,
the community).

A related point in support of Sam Weiler's comments about responsiveness and
leveraging distributed communication tools (like the PPML). Would it make
sense once the actual process and rules are determined to use a tool like
the Sunlight Foundation's PublicMarkup project <
http://publicmarkup.org/about/> or similar? Mailing lists, as critical as
they are for remaining in contact, don't strike me as a great choice for
distributed markup of complex issues.  A combination of tools used might
make more sense, increasing transparency, participation in all phases of the
proposed PDP.

If you're interested, PublicMarkup.org code <
http://publicmarkup.org/about/code/> (I have no affiliation).

Best regards,

-- 
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> wrote:

> [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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080509/f36a6410/attachment.htm>